Page 40 - Cormorant Issue 20 2017

PAGE 38
Parrying Unreliability: Foreign Relations and the Trump Administration Dr. Jill S. Russell
IN 1937, WITH THE Great British public unwilling to commit to war against Nazi Germany over
the extant situation, the best Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain could achieve was Adolf Hitler’s agreement to the minimum terms for peace between the two countries. Usually cited as the de nition of appeasement’s bankruptcy as a policy, a more useful perspective is that Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement de nes
the transformative role that reliability plays in international relations and diplomacy. Setting the stage for one of the more enduring examples of political resolve in war of the 20th century, when Hitler proved his word was unreliable and his diplomacy not worth the paper upon which it was written, war became not only politically feasible, but popular. The German Chancellor’s diplomatic per dy made manifest the scale of the threat
his regime presented, galvanizing the Britons to endure a signi cant struggle. That Germany was able to repeat this diplomatic charade with the Soviet Union was remarkable—but like the UK, that the USSR also needed more time to prepare for the coming con ict made even a worthless deal attractive for the delay it provided. And for the Soviets, as for the British, the political will for war was built in large measure upon the ruins of Nazi reliability.
Applied to present circumstances, Munich becomes a cautionary tale of a different sort. The routine daily cycle of scandal and disruption make it dif cult to imagine how the Trump administration will survive another month, let alone the next four years, for the time being scholars, policy experts, and state actors must act as if it will. Assuming there is at least a short term political resolution to the current tempests
tossing the infant Trump Administration allowing it
to settle into its work of governance, it is reasonable to examine the prospects for the administration’s dealings abroad. In this realm, the history and enduring nature of the international system within which foreign relations operates suggests a troubled course ahead for the US.
In four short months the Trump Presidency has already aptly demonstrated reliability’s in uence across the spectrum of America’s dealings
abroad. Proving that the campaign was prelude
not posturing, events of the rst months of his administration have solidi ed a pro le of unreliability that the government will struggle with as it attempts to pursue its international policy agenda. Thus, even as the administration settles into governance, for the purposes of American foreign relations its reliability has already been negatively de ned. This will not only change the parameters of American policy, but the intellectual approach to the subject as well.
Why must this be so? The intercourse between states is unduly affected by reliability because of the nature of the international system. On the one hand, trust between states is inherently dif cult to achieve, let alone maintain. On the other, trust is an absolute necessary for anything beyond armed autarky. The only means to overcome the paradox of these two characteristics which de ne the system in which relations must occur is to create trust is by way of the steadying predictability of states and their leaders. Absent the redemptive characteristic of reliability,
a government’s efforts abroad risk frustration and failure. At the worst, as seen above the unreliable international actor can be the suf cient harbinger
that con ict with another state is unavoidable. But
it affects the broad scope of relations beyond war. Foreign policy initiatives ourish without committed steadfastness. Diplomacy, already too sensitive, cannot survive much violence of emotion or change. Nor can alliances, a natural contradiction to the primacy of state self-interest in matters of defence and security, endure long under the duress of a ckle partner.
Building trust based upon reliability is a delicate
and ckle effort. Ruled by a tyranny of intangibles, reliability is manufactured as much by style and process as substance. Thus, whereas domestic policy contests will struggle over the content of a president’s agenda, it will also be largely unaffected by his persona. In foreign relations, however,
those qualities matter most importantly because
they shape foreign perceptions of the government across a number of issues. Beyond that, they in uence diplomatic actors in their interactions with the US government. And there can be no doubt
that decisions are ultimately made based upon them. At worst, failures arising from an actually or expected to be unreliable administration could be the irredeemable segue to war; at best it will certainly add friction to already sticky diplomatic processes. Thus, irrespective of stated aims, the spectre of reliability will determine the terms of relations with other states and the results of formal diplomacy.
To suggest that Trump presents a pro le in unreliability is no partisan slander. Rather, the terms of this characteristic are derived from his own avowed business practices and record, qualities sold as his strength for the job. According to his avowed business philosophy, success is achieved through bluster and aggression, margins improved