Fear of the unknown could roil the US

Trump’s divergent views on domestic as well as foreign policy have ruffled feathers at home and abroad

TIn the six weeks since the election, Trump’s administration has appeared unfamiliar with the conventions of either domestic politics or foreign policy.

he mantra of the month for Washington DC is “wait and see”. The US political establishment, and anyone affected by its decisions, begins 2017 in a state of profound uncertainty: How will the country — and, indeed the world — change under President Donald Trump? Wait and see. Analysts of the 2016 election campaign suggest that Trump benefited from being seen as a complete outsider to the elite-centric and corrupt politics of Washington. This is quite true: He will be the first president with no prior experience in electoral politics or government service. In the six weeks since the election, his administration has appeared unfamiliar with the conventions of either domestic politics or foreign policy, as well as unwilling to abide by a number of them. The corollary to electing an outsider, it seems, is constant uncertainty over how he will act — and great speculation in the media.

These fields of speculation form concentric circles — those relating to US politics, to relations within the Americas, and then to global affairs. Domestic questions include taxation, employment, healthcare, and the challenge of race relations, particularly in relation to policing. Trump is also the second Republican candidate (since George W Bush in 2000) to be awarded a victory by the geographically weighted Electoral College despite losing the popular vote to his opponent — an outcome likely to spur efforts to reform that system and electoral finance laws before 2020.

The US relationship with Central America, particularly Mexico, straddles domestic and regional arenas. There are some positive developments, such as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba — a process that will likely be smoothened by the death of Fidel Castro — or the extradition of notorious drug trafficker Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman to the US by Mexico. Trump, however, infamously described Mexicans in racist terms, calling them criminals, rapists, and murderers, and blamed them for the decline in job opportunities in America. He has promised to levy punitive tariffs on companies that outsource jobs to Mexico. This threat may not faze Mexican leaders much, given that the US is not the sole source of outsourced jobs, but President Enrique Peña Nieto may be tempted to adopt harsh rhetoric against Trump to shore up his domestic support, which is at a record low following a plagiarism scandal.

Trump’s most publicised promise was to “build a wall” (along the US-Mexico border), to have Mexico pay for that wall, and to deport “millions” of illegal immigrants. While he has since moderated both those statements, they likely remain difficult to fulfil. Many of those crossing the southern border are not Mexicans, but rather refugees fleeing gang violence in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Honduras. The founders of those gangs met in prison in the US before being deported themselves, and continue to source most of their firearms from US sellers, suggesting a complex feedback loop that stretches far past any one border.

Gang violence will remain a major concern across Central America, including in Mexico, especially in light of the growing number of “disappeared” — persons kidnapped by drug cartels, which use abduction to terrorise and silence local opposition. The families of these local politicians, teachers, students, and journalists are likely to emerge as a potent political force, holding elected officials to account when they fail to protect citizens from such brazen violence — especially because the cartels’ impunity is seen as a reflection of corruption in government.

In the US, the unfortunate trend of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence is also likely to continue. Worryingly, it may intersect with rising Islamophobia to result in violent hate crimes against Muslims. While campaigning, Trump had suggested that admitting Muslim refugees increases the risk of terrorist attacks in the US, and that Muslim immigrants must be banned or face “extreme vetting”, even though there have been no terrorist attacks in the US by first-generation refugees. The US already applies an extremely rigorous verification procedure, and has taken in only a small number of immigrants from Syria and Iraq, so it is unclear what future asylum-seekers will face under Trump administration.

Analysts in the US are currently trying to decipher Trump’s intentions from the proposed appointments for his cabinet. Of particular interest is the nominee for Secretary of State, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who enjoys a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. On the one hand, improved relations with Russia might create new leeway for a negotiated solution in Syria, albeit one that will favour the regime of Bashar Al Assad. It may even enable joint military action against Daesh in Syria and Iraq, doing serious damage to the terrorist group. On the other hand, US intelligence agencies are reporting that Russia was responsible for hacking the Clinton campaign, and for spreading disinformation to influence voters. President Obama has hinted that the US would retaliate with cyber-attacks of its own, including by means that show effect after Trump’s inauguration.

Closer US-Russia relations, especially the removal of economic sanctions, would also cause concern among NATO members, as this would be seen as legitimising Russia’s occupation of Ukraine. Trump has been ambivalent on NATO, and received distinctly qualified greetings from leaders such as Angela Merkel of Germany; meanwhile, both Exxon and his own companies may stand to benefit from the lifting of sanctions. Yet Trump has also called for building up the nuclear arsenal, which contradicts established bilateral disarmament policy, and waded into a confrontation with China — another favourite target for harsh campaign rhetoric — by receiving a phone call from Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-Wen.

In short, it is challenging to read a coherent policy — or even philosophy — from this tangle of mixed messages. The most charitable interpretation might be that a President Trump will have to “learn on the job”, as it were. One area, however, where his intentions appear clear is climate change. His appointments to key posts in the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, along with his campaign rhetoric, make it clear that Trump does not see climate change as a priority, and is likely to side with fossil fuel companies on regulatory matters.

The question thus becomes whether Trump will attempt to reverse decisions taken by Obama at home, as well as key foreign policy initiatives, such as the Iran nuclear deal. The only response from Washington: wait and see. Ameya Naik researches conflict resolution and foreign policy, and is based between Boston and New York.