TRUMP'S VERSION OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

Tomorrow, I will get back to the weekly post of my memoirs, but the last few weeks have completely shaken up the world order that it is impossible not to react .

Trump had campaigned on the basis of an isolationist platform: America should come first and stop helping other countries. Within days of assuming the presidency, he announced that the US should take over Greenland and the Panama canal, make Canada the 51^st state and take Gaza. Trump’s declarations have hardly been contradicted by Republican politicians. How can one interpret all these foreign policy moves, including the rapprochement with Putin and the castigation of Ukrainian president Zelensky? Why have the foreign policy hawks in the GOP remained silent?

Two principles seem to govern US foreign policy under Trump. First, the US should throw its economic and military weight around in international politics. Two, China is the main threat to the US. Trump clearly favors the “realist” approach to foreign policy whereby balance of power relations between countries and big powers are the only game in town. From that perspective, only Russia, China and the US count as big powers in today’s world and it is only normal that they should divide the world into spheres of influence as was done at Yalta in 1945. What does this imply?

Trump’s aggressive declarations about Greenland, Canada and Panama, but also Mexico, are in a way reminiscent of the Monroe doctrine that was seen as central to American foreign policy in the early 20^th century. What could Trump’s interpretation of the Monroe doctrine look like? The message seems to be that the US claims the right to have control over the whole American continent, including Greenland. Even if it is not clear at all whether Trump will send troops to take control of non-US parts of the American continent, he clearly wants China and Russia to stop its influence activities on the American continent. How he could do that is another matter, but he will certainly try.

If the American continent is reserved for the US, what about the other continents? Large parts of Asia would naturally be reserved for China. This would imply that Trump would let the PRC take over Taiwan, presumably in exchange of China withdrawing from Latin America. Australia would in all likelihood fall under China’s sphere of influence. Any “deal” that would imply letting the PRC take over Taiwan without opposition from the US will obviously be seen as a “historical” victory for Beijing’s communist regime and control over Taiwan would very significantly weaken Japan and South Korea that have been American allies for decades.

What about Europe? What about Africa?

Before discussing this, let us first focus on Russia, the third major military power in the world. In this reallocation of spheres of influence, Trump has an interest in satisfying Russia’s demands. The main reason is that if China is seen as the main threat to US hegemony, the US will have an interest in breaking the current alliance between Russia and China and do what some have called a “reverse Kissinger”. From that perspective, one understands that making a “deal” that would reward Russia for its invasion of Ukraine can represent a move to forge an alliance with Russia against China. This is probably the main reason why many Republicans who are China hawks remain silent after Trump’s declarations supporting Putin against Zelensky. This cynical move would leave Ukrainians alone with the EU to fight off Russian expansionism, creating the biggest danger to peace in Europe since Hitler. Knowing that the US would not intervene on the old continent, Russia would then clearly try to conquer as much territory as it can in Europe. The post-WWII model of an alliance of all democracies against their enemies would then definitely be broken. How far would the US go in satisfying Russia’s expansionist aspirations? So far, Trump does not seem willing to please Russia’s aspirations in the Middle East. Russia has suffered important setbacks with the fall of Assad’s regime in Syria and with the weakening of Iran’s influence. Trump strongly supports Israel and Saudi Arabia and does not want Russia to intervene to weaken US influence in the Middle East. It is, however, not impossible that Trump may support Russia in any tension that may emerge with Turkey that controls the Bosphorus and access to the Black Sea. In any case, Russia’s much larger size relative to other European countries would strongly weaken the latter in the absence of US support if they are not able to form a stable alliance to deter Moscow’s expansionism, which unfortunately seems likely.

What about the African continent? China and Russia have been very active either through infrastructure investment or military intervention. Trump has not yet made any declaration about Africa, but many US companies are very active in the extraction of natural resources such as coltan. At some point, the US will certainly want to intervene to thwart China’s influence activities in Africa. Without a doubt, the most likely scenario is that the three great powers will fight over control of the African continent, the continent that suffers the most from poverty.

Trump’s push to reallocate spheres of influence between Russia and China and his attempt to ally with Russia against China will not end well. Smaller countries that are being “allocated” to a sphere of influence will show strong resistance. The first test for this will be Ukraine. When Trump and Putin will make a deal to give Russia some form of control over Ukraine, the latter will resist with passion. It will be in the interest of all democracies to help Ukraine defeat Russia.