Quick Take: Trump's foreign policy legacy - the wins

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:

Hi everybody. It is the last day of the Trump administration. Most of you, probably pretty pleased about that. A majority of Americans, though not a large majority, but certainly a majority of people around the world. And given that that's a good half of the folks that follow what we do at GZERO, that counts to a majority. And look, I ought to be clear, when we talk about the Trump administration and their foreign policy legacy, "America First" was not intended to be popular outside of the United States. So, it's not surprising that most people are happy to see the back of this president. But I thought what I would do would be to go back four years after say, what are the successes? Is there anything that Trump has actually done, the Trump administration has done that we think is better off in terms of foreign policy for the United States and in some cases for the world than it would have been if he hadn't been there? And I actually came up with a list. So, I thought I'd give it to you.

I'm more than happy to be critical of Trump as need be, you all know, but it's at the end of the administration. And I'm an upbeat kind of guy, I thought it'd be nice to leave with some of the successes. And before I get into the list, let me be clear, there are, I think, three reasons why you get successes in the Trump administration. The first is that some of Trump's own impulses were actually right. I mean, the fact that he wanted to end wars, for example. That's generally speaking a pretty useful impulse that the foreign policy establishment just hadn't been able to get its head around. Secondly, whatever you think of President Trump himself, a lot of the members of his administration were capable, were professional and tried to do their jobs, and that actually comes through. And then finally, and perhaps this is most important, when you're running the most powerful country in the world, you get luckier because other countries, even if they don't like what you're saying or you're doing, recognize the consequences of not going along are really costly. And that helps any president become more successful than they otherwise would have been and certainly played to Trump's advantages over the course of his four years. So, let me go through the list and I'll start with what I think are the most important.

First on US-China policy and most importantly on technology. I mean, this had been really a non-issue or even in some cases, a fait accompli where most allies were mistrustful of the United States after the Snowden disclosures and looking to hedge towards a cheaper, faster rollout to Chinese 5G. And instead, you now have most of the world's advanced industrial economies deciding to work together on Western solutions for the next generation of data technologies and anything with a chip in it. That started with the Trump administration saying, "Chinese 5G is not okay. It's dangerous to US national security, dangerous for allies as well." That's probably their most significant success, and by the way, one that the Biden administration is completely aligned with. When Biden first threw his hat in as presidential candidate, he said, "What do you mean? China's not a significant threat. They're not a competitor. I mean, what are you talking about? It's all about Russia." Very quickly, Biden had blowback, realized that he was out of date on this stuff. He got up to speed and now the Biden administration is almost completely aligned with the Trump administration in their key aspects of China policy.

Secondly, the Abraham Accords, the normalization of Israel diplomatic relations with a series of Arab states, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, other countries moving towards normalization. We see that with Oman, and we see it with even Saudi Arabia. This is a big deal, and it was a big deal that was basically a recognition on the part of the Trump administration that the geopolitics of the region had changed. Started with their first trip ever, when Trump became president, was to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Radically different from what other presidents would have done. Previous administrations, even Secretary of State John Kerry said, "Unless you do Israel-Palestinian peace, you will never get peace between Israel and other states." Actually, the Palestinian issue is becoming less important, the Iran issue much more so. Energy production in the region was becoming more problematic in terms of their national security. Prices were going down; the US had more influence. They used it. That was what allowed those countries to normalize that relationship.

Some trade wins. Most of the coverage of trade on the Trump administration has been about deficits and Trump wielding tariffs when he doesn't get what he wants. And admittedly, trade today is higher tax and more disrupted on balance than when Trump took office, but there have been significant successes. The most significant, I'd say two; KORUS, which is the South Korea-US trade deal. The US got South Korea to rewrite a lot of their own laws to satisfy Washington without the US having to give any major changes or having to go through Congress to gain approval. The USMCA, the new NAFTA is in many ways a smaller, less controversial piece of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Obama couldn't get done and Trump then killed. It does make much more of the entirety of trade between the US, Mexico and Canada covered by a trade agreement, including things like data, intellectual property, services, it modernizes the relationship. You have the opening of a US-Kenya trade agreement. And for all of the flak that Trump got on calling African states shithole countries, it's interesting that he's only the second president that's ever opened a trade agreement with an important African country, especially because it helped stop their alignment with China and creates a new template for post-African growth and an opportunity act trade regime with Africa that the Biden administration will move on.

The war on ISIS. I mean, there's no question that the Islamic state came to an end as a territorial unit with local governance following an aggressive and effective Trump campaign to incapacitate the organization and weaken its threat to the US and allies. The war was started under Obama, ISIS had lost about half of its territory in Iraq, a little bit less than that in Syria before Trump's inauguration, but the Trump administration actually ramped it up. They've really been defeated as a consequence. Also, let's not forget the US killing of former ISIS head, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was a big symbolic win also under the Trump administration.

Mexico immigration. Believe it or not, for all of Trump's talk about building the wall on the border with Mexico, that Mexico was to pay for, which was always a big joke, no, instead, President Trump did get a wall built. He got much tighter security on Mexico's Southern border. He threatened Mexico with heavy tariffs if they didn't close the Southern border and effectively police illegal immigrants, and they did. There were decades of problems on this issue and President AMLO, Lopez Obrador took significant political and economic costs at home to police their border more effectively with Central America. Within six months, border flows into the United States were down over 50%, actually a pretty big deal. Kind of funny it's not one Trump ever talked about because he was always so focused on the wall, that was a big part of his campaign with the US Southern border.

OPEC. I would say that given that the US energy production has been so much higher under Obama and then under Trump, Trump was able to weaponize the American relationship with OPEC's strongest members, Saudi Arabia, like no other president. That meant that OPEC was more responsive to Trump's complaints of oil prices being too high early in the administration, and also got to that big, historic really, oil cut agreement among the COVID dislocations that was in no small part due to pressure from the White House.

I mentioned at the beginning the fact that Trump talked about wanting to end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You did see continued drawdown of troops in both of those countries and a foreseeable end to the Afghanistan war, the longest war in American history. Controversial decisions, but let's be clear that the foreign policy establishment said that if that was going to happen, you would have outside players monopolizing these power vacuums, taking over. That didn't happen. No one player has done that. And it also makes the pivot to Asia much more feasible when the United States is less bogged down in the Middle East.

International organization victories. I mean, the US has left a lot of organizations under Trump. That gets a lot of attention. I would mention that a meaningful one is the World Intellectual Property Organization, where the US and China were in a direct fight over its future. And the Trump administration actually cultivated alliances, isolated China, helped get a Singaporean as the new director general over a Chinese candidate, it gives a lot more influence to the US in an area that actually matters, especially the future of technology and governance for corporations going forward. Had a very successful US led World Bank funding round that was orchestrated by David Malpass, who runs that organization. And I'd also mentioned a fight in the International Atomic Energy Agency, where the Trump administration got the preferred American candidate in, which especially matters given the need to get more support after the US pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, they got it from the IAEA.

A number of US allies did get stronger, relationships with the US under Trump, things that we talk about a fair amount. Brazil under Bolsonaro, India under Modi, and the new Indo-Pak agreement, which you'll see continued under Biden. Certainly, Israel under Netanyahu who had been more deteriorated somewhat under Obama. And the Gulf Arabs. I'd also mentioned Poland in that list.

NATO cost sharing. Despite the fact that Trump said he was opposed to NATO in rhetoric, the reality was the Trump administration continued to push for NATO countries to pay more in defense. They were doing more under Obama and they did even more under Trump. That direction will likely continue.

I'd mentioned Sudan. It's hard to say that all of this is just the United States because there were a lot of countries that were looking for influence after Omar al-Bashir was no longer in power, but the Trump administration did help to push back an effort by the Sudanese military to sweep aside civilians and worked with both inside and outside actors, including the UN to help ensure democratic transition that has a real shot at success after decades of dictatorship.

So, if you put it all together, there is a list of things that the Americans got done in foreign policy under the Trump administration. And four years out, and we don't have to deal with him as president anymore, it's nice to look back and say it wasn't all horrible. I'm willing to do that. Maybe it brings us tiny bit closer together. So, there it is. We've now got President Biden and I'll see you all real soon.

Advancing global money movement for everyone, everywhere


Even with innovations in fintech and digital payments, roadblocks related to basic infrastructure like electricity and internet connectivity still prevent many migrant workers from being able to transfer money to their families back home with a truly digital end-to-end flow. While more workers can send money digitally today, the majority of people still receive funds in cash. Read more about why public-private partnerships are key to advancing the future of global money movement and why it matters from experts at the Visa Economic Empowerment Institute.

The European Union is, for better or worse, the most ambitious experiment in human history in institutionalized multinational cooperation. Its success depends on the willingness of its members to abide by its rules.

In recent years, the populist-nationalist governments of former Communist bloc members Hungary and Poland have flouted some of those rules in order to boost their own popularity with citizens suspicious of the EU's liberal values on issues like immigration and minority rights. In response, the EU has scolded these "illiberal" governments and threatened forceful action – so far without much effect.

The fight between EU institutions and Poland and Hungary has escalated.

More Show less

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. Below is our original piece on the Beirut port explosions published on August 5, 2020.

The twin explosions at Beirut's port on Tuesday were so powerful that the aftershocks reverberated as far as the Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus, 150 miles away. The specter of fire and smoke was such that many suggested on social media that Beirut had experienced a nuclear blast.

In the days ahead, more details will come to light about why a deadly cache of materials was haphazardly stashed at a port warehouse, and why Lebanon's government failed to secure the site. So, what comes next for crisis-ridden Lebanon?

More Show less

Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:

What does it actually mean to cut $1 trillion from the Democrats' $3.5 trillion social spending bill?

President Biden has proposed one of the most ambitious expansions of federal spending in recent memory. If he gets everything he wants, it would probably be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society, but he's not going to get everything he wants. Democrats have basically said they cannot do all $3.5 trillion in spending. They're probably going to end up around $2 trillion. So what gets cut? Well, we don't know yet. There's kind of two ways to go about this. They could either cut the number of programs that have been proposed, doing fewer things with more money on a permanent basis, or they could try to do more things, each program getting less money and potentially doing them on a temporary basis. So, a future Congress would have to extend it. What does this mean for you? Well, a lot of the money in here is designed to go directly to families, either in the form of cash payments, through the tax code, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, or subsidies for things like child care, early childhood education, and community college. And if you cut these things back, it means less money is going to go out the door to the American people. It also means less tax increases to finance it. So the implications of what's being proposed could actually end up being a big deal for a lot of Americans who would qualify for benefits under these new programs.

More Show less

How will artificial intelligence change the world and especially the job market by 2041? AI scientist Kai-fu Lee just wrote a book about precisely that, and he predicts it'll shake up almost every major industry. AI, he explains, will be most disruptive to many so-called "routine" occupations, but the damage may be reduced by shifting "empathetic" workers to jobs that require human empathy. Watch his interview on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer.

Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Is a robot coming for your job? Kai-fu Lee explains AI

The Atlantic CEO Nick Thompson believes in tech firms doing business in China because connecting with people there is a huge social good for the world. But in demanding LinkedIn de-platform certain people, he says, the Chinese government crossed a line, and "you can't justify that."

Watch Ian Bremmer's interview with Nicholas Thompson in an upcoming episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television.

Sectarian clashes in Lebanon: As Lebanese supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, were on their way to a protest in Beirut Thursday, gunfire broke out, evidently between Hezbollah militants and those of the Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. The protesters were rallying against the ongoing state probe into last year's devastating twin blasts at a Beirut port, saying that state authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. They have called for the dismissal of Judge Tarek Bitar — who is leading the probe and on Monday issued an arrest warrant for a prominent Shiite parliamentarian linked to Amal. Each side has blamed the other for starting the violence Thursday, which killed at least six people, injured dozens more, and threw the entire city into a panic. In a grim omen, the clashes, which are among the worst in recent years, erupted along one of the old front lines (dividing Muslim and Christian neighborhoods) of the 15-year sectarian civil war that devastated the country up until 1990. With the country mired in economic and political crises, the people of Lebanon can't seem to catch a break: just last week the country was plunged into complete darkness when its decrepit power grid ran out of fuel. Meanwhile, Najib Mikati, who became prime minister designate in July after months of political deadlock, declared a "day of mourning," but civil strife continues.

More Show less

35.4: The US has overtaken China as the country with the largest share of the world's Bitcoin mining networks, now accounting for 35.4 of the global mining presence. This comes after the Chinese government banned domestic cryptocurrency mining operations to promote its own digital yuan that would track every single transaction.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal


Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal


Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal