Trump’s monster dose of unpredictability

THOSE looking for domestic triggers on foreign policy decision-making may be tempted to see in the military retaliation a desire of Trump to be viewed as truly presidential. If that was his motivation, he appears to have succeeded. Trump has both flexed A

Cynicism is an inevitable function of political analysis. If every incident, real or perceived, act of human rights violation was to result in a unilateral third party military intervention, the world would be a very chaotic place and human progress would come to a grinding halt.

The chemical weapons unleashed by the Assad regime in Syria against civilians who were unlucky to be on the opposing side in a grim civil war was, by a yardstick of judgement, an unpardonable act of cruelty. Although in pure statistical terms, the numbers of those affected are not significant, the TV images of suffering children have unquestionably moved the West, particularly at a time when it is in quest of ‘causes’ that unite its people in moral outrage. The chemical weapons outrage brought together two themes that unite opinion on both sides of the Atlantic: hatred of the shaky Assad-led Baathist regime in Syria and a wariness cum loathing of Vladimir Putin’s government in Russia.

However, the Tomahawk missiles that were launched last Friday to cripple the military base from where the chemical attacks were launched were more than a grand show of moral and military retribution by the United States Administration. The retaliatory attack has become enormously significant, not because of its likely impact in a troubled corner of West Asia, but on account of what it reveals of President Donald Trump.

Since his surprise election in November last year, governments and analysts the world over have been trying to read the mind of the new American President. International relations are best conducted in an environment of relative stability. Unfortunately, Trump introduced a monster dose of unpredictability into the world’s capitals. While liberals and leftists may have been united in their loathing of Trump, the global community of realists—who respect the mandate of the US people—were confused over Trump’s agenda. He just couldn’t be fitted into any neat slot.

Whatever else the Tomahawk attacks may or may not do inside Syria and its neighbourhood, they have helped to take the global understanding of Trump a step further. I don’t seriously believe that moral indignation and the sight of God’s creations suffering at the hands of a heartless dictator were the only motives. Those looking for domestic triggers on foreign policy decision-making may be tempted to see in the military retaliation a desire of Trump to be viewed as truly presidential. If that was his motivation, he appears to have succeeded. Both Democrats and Republicans, despite raising legitimate questions about whether there is a larger strategy, appear to have rallied behind the President. There is also a measure of relief that Tomahawk missiles—which can be fired from a very safe distance—doesn’t necessarily propel the actual physical involvement of US soldiers in the conflict zone. Trump has both flexed American muscle and at the same time accommodated domestic fears of physical involvement.

Secondly, and this is quite important, Trump has addressed the concerns of the US Establishment over his covert special relationship with Russia. That Trump doesn’t believe Putin is an ogre may not seem abnormal in India. However, a very large section of the US and European establishments have been alarmed—especially in the context of Trump’s instinctive dislike of the way NATO is presently bankrolled—by the fear of a TrumpPutin private deal. After Friday’s military action, directed against an ally of Russia, the chances of a private deal have receded. There were always fears in Russia that the weight of the Western establishments would fall on Trump to keep the tensions with Russia simmering, and that Trump would ultimately succumb. These apprehensions have been justified. By being seen to be as tough on Russia as any ‘conventional’ US President, Trump has earned the enmity of Russia and, in the process, addressed a simmering Western concern. There are likely to be many smiling faces in the corridors of power in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw.

At the same time, there are likely to be feverish consultations in Florida among Chinese officials accompanying Xi Jinping for his all-important summit with Trump. By deviating from his earlier positions on American involvement overseas, Trump may end up reviving hope in an interventionist foreign policy. China, which was hoping that the Trump presidency would result in America going in for a bout of navel gazing, may have to redo its sums.

Of course, one Tomahawk attack doesn’t necessarily signal strategy. It is entirely possible that the concern over Syria will be short lived and won’t have any larger impact from the US’ larger process of global disengagement. Since Trump has demonstrated again that he is unpredictable, many may legitimately wonder when he will do another U-turn.

These questions, particularly the fears of renewed US-Russia tensions will preoccupy the strategic community for the next round of seminars. Meanwhile, no one is likely to be unduly bothered about those civilians whose suffering triggered this response in the first place. In the global chess game, pawns end up as useful decorations.

The author is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a Presidential Nominee to the Rajya Sabha