PRESIDENT TRUMP DESPERATELY SEEKS TO UNDO WHAT BUSH BUILT

There was a certain irony in the fact that, on the weekend Presidentgeorgebushdied,the 45thpresidentoftheunitedstateswas attending an international conference wherehisprincipaleffortsseemedaimed atkeyelementsinthenewworldorder the 41st president sought to build.

WHILE KEEPING A relatively low proile at the G-20 summit in Argentina in hopes of avoiding the gaffes that marked several priorinternationalventures,trumpdidtwo things,bothofwhichexempliiedthecontrast between his policies and those of the Bush presidency three decades ago: replacing the Western Hemispheric agreement that became known as NAFTA and seeking to redirect US policy toward China.

Trump, who made it a presidential goal to scrap the “terrible” North American Free Trade Agreement, joined the prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, and the outgoing president of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto, in signing what he called the “groundbreaking” USMCA (the US Mexico Canadaagreement),reallyamodestrevision some termed NAFTA 2.0.

Though signed under President Bill Clinton, the NAFTA agreement was very muchtheworkofbushandhispredecessor, Ronald Reagan.

Then,trumpreachedatleastashort-term truce in the trade war he launched against China in pursuit of another of his signature initiatives,curbingtheasianpower’seconomic expansionism in the interest of an America First policy that is at sharp odds with the more cooperative global outlook of not only Bush but the other former presidents who joined in mourning him this week.

It was Bush who made certain the Us-china relationship continued and prospered after the Beijing government brutally quashed pro-democracy forces in Tiananmen Square.

Throughout this week, much has been writtenofthepersonaldifferencesbetween the sometimes self-effacing, steady and experienced Bush, who guided the world through the tumultuous end of the Cold War, and the brusque, self-promotional governmental neophyte Trump, who makes a goal of disrupting existing norms.

But the policy differences Trump has instituted,especiallyinforeignpolicy,could well prove more consequential than the contrasts in their personal styles when he turns over the presidency to his inevitable successor, be he Democrat or Republican.

A lot will depend on whether, for Example, THE Current CEASEIRE In THE Us-china tariff war leads to a mutually BENEICIAL AGREEMENT or WHETHER, AFTER THE 90-day truce, it resumes to the detriment of the economies of both countries.

In a broader sense, US relations with its longtime global allies — as well as with major rivals like Russia — may depend on the extent to which Trump succeeds in weakeningthree-quartersofacentury’sus military and economic ties with Western Europe as he pursues friendlier relations with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

In one area, Trump has already done substantial damage: abandoning the US role established by prior presidents — be they more realistic or idealistic — as a beacon of democracy for nations around the world.

And his overall withdrawal from US international primacy stands in abrupt contrast to the two signal acts of leadership for which George Bush’s presidency will most be remembered: presiding over the peaceful end of the Cold War and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, and forming the global coalition that drove Iraq’s Saddam Hussein from Kuwait while avoiding the troubles that later bedeviled his presidential son. It’s likely that neither the peaceful end of the Cold War nor the successful liberation of Kuwait would have been possible with the current chief executive’s mindset and style.