When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Trump's Foreign Policy, Lots Of Bluster And Little Else

Tillerson and Trump in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 28
Tillerson and Trump in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 28
Jennifer Rubin

WASHINGTON — When President Barack Obama delivered State of the Union addresses without a full and detailed discussion of foreign policy, conservatives justifiably complained. We are a country at war, with rising, big power threats in an increasingly unstable world. All true. And yet when President Donald Trump said virtually nothing of substance Tuesday night on national security, conservatives by and large gave him a pass.

Trump's highlighting of the widow of slain Navy SEAL William "Ryan" Owens obscured the lack of substance on the cause for which Trump correctly said Owens gave his life. Repeating that we will eradicate the Islamic State is a tired campaign promise, not a policy. Uttering the words "radical Islamic fundamentalism" does not amount to a policy. Omitting mention of Afghanistan, where things have gradually taken a turn for the worse but where troops are engaged in combat, was, candidly, inexcusable. At this point he's simply stalling, asking for yet another "review" by the military.

Missing was any sense of urgency — or rationale for his one specific action, a failed Muslim travel ban. Max Boot, noting that Iraq may come off the list, asks "why are the six other nations still on the list?" He observes:

"This is an initiative that has nothing to do with U.S. security (Americans have not suffered lethal attacks at home from any of the target countries) and everything to do with appealing to anti-Muslim bigotry. It is doubtful that Trump's well-regarded appointees, such as John Kelly at Homeland Security, Rex Tillerson at State, James Mattis at Defense, or now H.R. McMaster at the National Security Council, told him to do this. Nor did they advise him to include a vitriolic condemnation of "radical Islamic terrorism" in his address. Indeed, if news accounts are accurate, McMaster advised Trump to take out those incendiary words that play into the terrorist narrative that the United States is waging a war on Islam. But Trump disregarded McMaster's wise counsel, choosing instead to heed the advice of zealots such as Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka who believe that we are in a civilizational struggle with Islam itself."

He wants a bigger military and increased contributions from allies, but to what end?

Trump spoke about Iran only in the past tense — pointing to new sanctions in response to the missile test (extremely limited, to the point of being innocuous) — but said nothing about Iran's compliance (or lack thereof) with the JCPOA, its role in Syria and Iraq, its increased repression at home and its support for terrorism. He has, in short, no Iran policy.

China came up only in the context of trade. Nothing was said about its cyberattacks or aggression in the South China Sea.

He did not mention Russia, Ukraine, Cuba, North Korea, Turkey or Syria.

More troubling, he gave no indication that he's developed any foreign policy vision in 40 days, or even thought seriously about these issues. He wants a bigger military and increased contributions from allies, but to what end?

What's evident here is that for all his and Stephen K. Bannon"s bluster about a new America First foreign policy, there is no there, there. They have no foreign policy experience, so we should not be surprised that they have nothing more than a bumper sticker.

Clinton may have lost, but we are getting a third Obama term when it comes to foreign policy, just with a bigger military.

If we want to see the glass as half full, we can hope that this is a sign Trump has lost interest in foreign policy and will leave it to capable Cabinet appointees. (Without reining in Gorka and Bannon and naming political appointees below the Cabinet level, however, he hamstrings these officials.) There is already talk that the military will have more freedom to act independently of the White House ("President Donald Trump has signaled that he wants his defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, to have a freer hand to launch time-sensitive missions quickly, ending what U.S. officials say could be a long approval process under President Barack Obama that critics claimed stalled some missions by hours or days.") Well, if the choice is between Trump running national security policy and Tillerson-McMaster-Mattis doing so, we should choose the latter — by acclamation. (If he thinks this is a way to evade responsibility when things go wrong, he's sadly mistaken. As commander in chief, he's responsible whether he wants to know the details or not.)

The glass-half-empty view may be that Trump thinks all there is to foreign policy is a big military and trying to "get along" with leaders. Slashing diplomacy and foreign aid and formally nixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership may indicate a deliberate plan of diplomatic insularity. Leaving foreign policy on automatic pilot, however, is what Trump said in the campaign that Hillary Clinton would do; he was supposed to be the one to chart a new course, provide greater stability and revive respect for America. Unfortunately there is no sign he understands what that entails or has any idea what an effective foreign policy might look like. In that regard, Clinton may have lost, but we are getting a third Obama term when it comes to foreign policy, just with a bigger military.

The danger here for the country is that our adversaries see him as unprepared, uncertain or uninterested. For Trump, the danger is that if a crisis occurs, voters will want to know what he's been doing on national security since being elected.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


First It Was Poland's Farmers — Now Truckers Are Protesting Ukraine's Special Status

For the past month, Poland has been blocking off its border checkpoints to Ukrainian trucks, leaving many in days-long lines. It's a commercial and economic showdown, but it's about much more.

Photogrqph of a line of trucks queued in the  Korczowa - border crossing​

November 27, 2023, Medyka: Trucks stand in a queue to cross the border in Korczowa as Polish farmers strike and block truck transport in Korczowa - border crossing

Dominika Zarzycka/ZUMA
Katarzyna Skiba

Since November 6, Polish truckers have blocked border crossing points with Ukraine, citing unfair advantages given to the Ukrainian market, and demanding greater support from the European Union.

With lines that now stretch for up to 40 kilometers (25 miles), thousands of Ukrainian truckers must now wait an average of about four days in ever colder weather to cross the border, sometimes with the help of the Polish police. At least two Ukrainian truck drivers have died while waiting for passage into Poland.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

The round-the-clock blockade is being manned by Polish trucking unions who claim that Ukrainian trucking companies, which offer a cheaper rate, have been transporting goods across Europe, rather than between Poland and Ukraine. Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion, Ukrainian truckers have been exempt from the permits once required to cross the border.

Now, Polish truckers are demanding that their government reintroduce entry permits for Ukrainian lorries, with exceptions for military and humanitarian aid from Europe. For the moment, those trucks are being let through the blockade, which currently affects four out of Ukraine’s eight border crossings with Poland.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest