Is principled realism a real doctrine?
In Trump’s case, it appears to have little depth
In his speech to the UN General Assembly this week, U.S. President Donald Trump emphasized once again his foreign policy of “principled realism.”
“America’s policy of principled realism,” Trump said in his second address to the General Assembly, “means we will not be held hostage to old dogmas, discredited ideologies and so-called experts who have been proven wrong over the years, time and time again.”
But what, exactly, does “principled realism” mean? Is it a thing? And is it working for Trump?
It’s a phrase the president has used at least five times in public speeches since his inauguration and it appeared in his national security strategy released by the White House last December.
Some academics dismiss “principled realism” as a slogan, a bumper sticker with little depth to it. They say it represents an attempt at squaring realism — advancing national interests through a careful use of the instruments of power — with idealism, trying to use your foreign policy as a mechanism for changing the world, making states behave in more principled ways.
Stéphane Dion took a similar path when he was foreign minister, calling his doctrine “responsible conviction.”
“Principled realism” is an ambiguous phrase to begin with, said Roland Paris, a professor of international affairs at the University of Ottawa. His guess is that the phrase was penned by White House staffers attempting to provide Trump with a recognizable framing for what is essentially an “America First” foreign policy doctrine, “something that seems much closer to the way Trump understands his foreign policy.”
According to Wesley Wark, a visiting professor in the graduate school of public and international affairs at the U of O, “principled realism” is formally understood as combining “the pursuit of realism (the maximization of state power in an anarchic and competitive system) with a moral compass based on values (the principled part.)”
Trump’s “whisperer” on this is Henry Kissinger, who is a true believer in principled realism, Wark said. “But does the phrase actually mean anything to Trump or actually shape his foreign policy? My answer to both questions is: no, not in any systematic way.”
Trump is the ultimate opportunist who puts the doctrine aside when it suits his political needs, added New York University ethicist Arthur Caplan. “He’s a bit like a metronome, bouncing back and forth.”
Caplan isn’t even certain it is a coherent philosophy. “If you are willing to override your principles whenever politics or realism demands it then you’re not very principled.”
In August 2017 Trump used the phrase during a prime time speech on Afghanistan. “We are not asking others to change their way of life but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward.”
According to a paper in TRENDS Research & Advisory, “this indicates that in practice, ‘principled realism’ means relying on shared interests and “expressly not engaging in former Neoconservative military adventures to spread democracy,” unless it best suits the interests of the U.S.
The TRENDS paper also refers to a speech in 1988 by Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead entitled: Principal Realism. A Foundation for U.S. Foreign Policy. That speech ends with Whitehead saying American was “born in principled realism. By policies principled and realistic it is, and shall be, sustained.”
Trump evoked the doctrine again in his decision to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: “The foreign policy of the United States is grounded in principled realism, which begins with an honest acknowledgment of plain facts. With respect to the State of Israel, that requires officially recognizing Jerusalem as its capital.”
According to TRENDS, “it would be hard to find an example of something less practical, and more founded upon an ideological commitment” than the decision to move the embassy to the contested city of Jerusalem. “The move was widely criticized by regional allies and it is difficult to calculate which foreign policy interest was served by it.”
After threatening last year to “totally destroy” North Korea in his first address to the UN — the same occasion he used to deride Kim Jong Un as “Little Rocket Man” — Trump boasted this week that Kim’s “missiles and rockets are no longer flying in every direction, nuclear testing has stopped” and some military facilities are being dismantled. This time around, Trump thanked the former rocket man for his “courage.”
According to Paris, realists who emphasize the cautious use of power would see those wild swings — from “threatening to obliterate the guy” to flattery — as reckless, in both of those extremes.
Trump later met Kim in Singapore and abruptly declared North Korea was no longer a nuclear threat, Paris said, “apparently based on little more than Kim’s vague pledge to work toward denuclearization.”
The improved relations between North and South Korea are welcome, Paris added, but still fragile.
Since taking office, Trump has promoted protectionist tariffs and questioned the utility of alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “asserting American’s interests over those of every other state and ending the raw deal that the United States has allegedly received from the rest of the world,” Paris said.
“Is it serving Americans’ interests? I’m not so sure.”
There’s little by way of traditional realism in the way Trump has approached his dealings with key allies, added Fen Osler Hampson, director of global security and politics at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. Realists typically like alliances, Hampson said. “They’re a way of building support for a country against its adversaries. You don’t weaken your alliance partners by engaging in a trade war against them.”
“In many ways, Trump is pulling up the drawbridge and filling up the moat around the United States.” That could end up hurting Americans.
On Tuesday, Trump did say the U.S. was committed to making the UN more effective and accountable. He hit out at China over intellectual property theft and lashed out at Iran for sowing “chaos, death and destruction.”
Kissinger, who has been known to advise Trump on occasion, was seen by many “as the realist par excellence,” Hampson said.
“Kissinger believed in the importance of triangular diplomacy — playing the Russians off the Chinese through a combination of carrots and sticks.”
“This is a diplomacy of sticks, and very few carrots.”
(TRUMP’S) LIKE A METRONOME, BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH.