Visits: 1
President Donald Trump, speaking on the world’s biggest stage, this week laid for the United Nations his case for patriotism and against globalism. He then doubled down on his determination to push back on China.
If he’s determined to do the first, however, he will fail at the second.
Put another way: If he wants to dramatically reduce U.S. engagement through multilateral institutions, he will lack the leverage to either counter China or shape its behavior.
Thus, President Trump should have instead remade himself as a “patriotic globalist.” After all, it was patriotism at its best that prompted U.S. decision makers after the Second World War to establish an America-led system of alliances and institutions that ended the destructive cycle of zero-sum relations in Europe and Asia.
They did so not out of abstract benevolence or Utopian naivete, but because global engagement ensured American interests. And history has proven them right. Through establishing international norms for free trade and a U.S. military presence around the world to enforce them, U.S. leaders enabled U.S. businesses to securely trade globally, thus creating unprecedented profits and jobs.
Whatever you think of Trump’s style, what appeals to his supporters is that he frequently puts his finger on real problems that other politicians have swept under rugs.
It’s true that U.S. allies haven’t paid enough for their own defense, that China engages in unfair trade and investment practices, that the Obama administration failed to address Iran’s regional misconduct and Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and that conventional approaches to North Korea did nothing to alter its nuclear weapons’ trajectory.
He gets too little credit for identifying and acting upon issues that more conventional politicians had allowed to fester. Yet to achieve lasting progress on any of these fronts, President Trump will need to do better at galvanizing friends and allies and navigating multilateral organizations.
His UN speech betrays a misunderstanding of how U.S. international engagement since World War II has served American interests. Cold War victory over Soviet-style communism and its global influence efforts, without a shot being fired by the principals, came about only due to consistent U.S. leadership of allies and friends, working through acronymic institutions such as NATO, the OSCE, the EU and the IMF.
Hardly a week passes when the U.S.-established order doesn’t face strains, many exacerbated by the Trump administration itself.
On Sunday, Macedonia will vote on whether to join NATO as its 30th member. The likely positive outcome underscores the alliance’s continued attractiveness as stability provider.
Next week will also do much to determine the shape of the British exit from the European Union, given the British Conservative Party congress starting on Sunday. The costs of a “no deal” Brexit would be huge for the British, but any form of Brexit would be a blow for U.S. interests in Europe and the strength of post-war European institutions.
Finally, it remains uncertain whether Canada will join the recent U.S.-Mexico trade agreement and thus strengthen NAFTA, or whether the trilateral trade pact will come undone and lead to even greater trade tensions with America’s nearest neighbor and ally.
These short-term developments are not disconnected strands but rather all relate to maintaining U.S. international interest though existing international institutions and agreements.
The stakes for the international system, however, are highest in the contest between the United States and China over who will have the most influence in shaping the coming century.
This week at the Wilson Center, Henry Kissinger correctly called it “the key problem of our time,” growing out of the two countries’ differing systems yet common view that their unique histories give them an “exceptional nature.”
Says Kissinger: “Each of us is strong enough to create situations around the world in which it can impose its preference, but the importance of the relationship will be whether each side can believe they have achieved enough to be compatible with their convictions and with their histories. That is a huge task. It’s never been attempted systematically by any two nations in the world.”
Such an unprecedented goal won’t be achieved by the U.S. alone.
Unilateral efforts of the sort President Trump favors, even actions as audacious as new tariffs on more than $200 billion of goods, are unlikely to produce sufficient leverage to sway a country of nearly 1.4 billion that is on track to be the world’s largest economy by 2030.
There are only two possibilities to bring about a lasting change to Chinese trade and investment practices, which most U.S. partners agreed must be address.
The U.S. can work within a multilateral coalition to alter China’s behavior, and there are new efforts alongside the EU and Japan that are encouraging. Or the West will have to resign itself to the reality that China may be able to write the rules itself very soon.
President Trump is right to view some international institutions derisively, such as the UN Human Rights Council, but the global system as a whole is preferable to the global jungle that preceded World War II or the unpredictable outcome following any U.S. disengagement.
Speaking to a Trump confidant, I suggested the following argument for the real estate man who is now commander-in-chief. (I’m uncertain the argument ever reached President Trump):
“Consider the global order to be the house that America built. After so many decades and so much global change, it’s badly in need of repair and remodeling. With new powers rising, it’s worth changing the ownership structure and architecture.
“However, Mr. President, if you abandon the project or allow the structure to collapse, others will build what they want in its place. The United States will have less influence on whatever replaces it.”
Rather than tossing aside globalism in the name of patriotism, President Trump would be better off to declare himself a “patriotic globalist,” recognizing the two concepts are mutually dependent.
Some of America’s greatest patriots designed the structure and they would be the first to agree with President Trump on its current imperfections.
They would warn him, however, that American interests and values could suffer irreparable harm if the system is neglected or allowed to fail.
Frederick Kempe is a best-selling author, prize-winning journalist and president & CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the United States’ most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked at The Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as a foreign correspondent, assistant managing editor and as the longest-serving editor of the paper’s European edition. His latest book – “Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth” – was a New York Times best-seller and has been published in more than a dozen languages. Follow him on Twitter @FredKempe and subscribe here to Inflection Points, his look each Saturday at the past week’s top stories and trends.
For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.