Trump 2.0: Madman theory and anticipated global order

As Jan 20 approaches closer and President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office in the White House, states are sensing terrible tremors in foreign policy around the world. Trump’s ‘Truth Social’ diplomacy is already creating huge shocks in foreign policy and multilateralism even before he assumes the oath of office of the presidency. Trump is arguably the only president in American history to be equally admired and despised both within and outside the country. Most of Trump’s detractors blame that his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement is a trivial insignia of nationalistic vanity rather than being a patriotic big headedness. Trump, however, has been irrefutably successful in synonymizing ‘Trumpism’ and ‘Republicanism’ and shrewdly synthesizing it into ‘Populism’ in US politics.

The President-elect has declared that he will impose heavy tariffs on all exports from China, Canada, Mexico, and the BRICS countries, including tech and EVs. China, on the other hand, has announced a ‘zero-tariff’ policy for small states, particularly LDCs. Trump’s “great wall of tariff” may lead to crucial tensions in the tech, trade, and diplomatic affairs between the US and China under Trump 2.0, which would have global repercussions. Many Americans may still be unaware whether the ‘blanket tariff’ that could raise inflation is actually an American ‘policy’ or just a ‘threat’, put forth as a negotiating tactic that the president-elect is likely to impose on its major trading partner, close neighbors, and longstanding allies. Besides, the linkage between the taxes that Americans pay and the tariffs that the Trump administration is likely to impose on foreign exports should be understood by the general public.

Trump has avowed of taking back Panama Canal, controlling Greenland, and has urged Canada to join the US as its 51st state in a Christmas message under his ‘Truth Social’ discretion. Panama Canal is a waterway in Panama that connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, which was built by the US and handed over to the Panamanian government nearly 25 years ago. Greenland is a sovereign territory of Denmark, while Canada is a G7 member and NATO ally. The chances that Trump would again raise the issue of the origin of Covid-19 towards China cannot be denied, which could widen the trust gap between the US and China.

Trump made immutable mistakes by emboldening some of its adversaries including Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Turkey, among others, during his first term as the US president. His adversaries have become skeptical of his emotional intelligence and diplomatic avenues due to his frequent use of coercive and irrational language through his erratic tweets during his first term. He is now annoying US allies and key partners, which could bring irrevocable debacle in US foreign policy. Trump is, perhaps, assuming that the Nixon-Kissinger model of the “Madman Theory—act mad and other countries won’t dare trifle with you”—could work for him too.

In his dealing with North Korea, Trump applied the “Kernel of idea” from Madman Theory, possibly to give the impression that he was “irrational and volatile” so that North Korea would less likely provoke the US in fear of potential consequences. Madman theory sometimes may go truly furious in case of action and consequences if the strengths and strategies of the adversaries are undermined.

Trump has abandoned a number of multilateral alliances, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the nuclear missile accord with Russia during his first term. As a result, the US dramatically lost credibility, reputation, reliability and trust of its allies. The US is likely to witness more severe forfeiture under Trump 2.0 as he has threatened to walk-out from NATO and other significant multilateral alliances.

The main concern, however, may be whether these unusual strategies truly fall under modern US foreign policy? Do rational Americans want a military confrontation (or colonial war) in any part of the world under the monologue of neo-colonialism or political hooliganism?

From an American perspective, Trump is accomplishing American goals, such as economic growth, immigration control, border security, and nationalism. Enhancing American security and economic interests are truly a nationalistic idea. The interests of the US, however, are global. America firmly believes in globalism, liberalism, open world economy, and multilateralism. America is not just a country in the North American continent; it is a responsible global power. America is the world's most powerful nation not just because of its economy, strong domestic institutions, technology, or military might, but also because of its pragmatic foreign policy, soft power, visionary engagement in multilateral organizations, and trustful allies and partners. America’s masculine foreign policy, unwavering hold on global leadership, and distinct legacy have made it a great power. American security is said to be characterized by its emphasis on democracy, multiculturalism, multilateralism, and international law.

By the end of World War II, the US was still the most powerful country in the world, controlling over 35 percent of the world’s production, and it had the ability to (re)shape the world according to its wishes.  American values abroad are gradually waning. Is America on the verge of decline? What will be the American position in the years to come, question many critics?

When we examine the precise causes and consequences of the rise and fall of great powers or various empires, constricted ideas or disparities in development have resulted in power struggles. Their power primarily centered on the conflict between their militaries’ ascent and social forces, ethnic nationalism, economic development, colonial and hegemonic behavior. Additionally, power struggles have led to the extinction of empires following the annexation of such power.

Presumably, with a limited global presence and an isolationist foreign policy, America cannot sustain its position as a major power in the long run. The absence of US leadership in the world would leave ample ground for its adversaries to create more challenges or trouble for it. America is the only multicultural nation in the world where people from all over the world dwell or aspire to dwell. While America is winning the hearts, minds, and spirits of tens of millions of people worldwide, Trump's massive deportation plan would certainly weaken its soft power and essence of multiculturalism.

However, Trump’s initiative for peace in the Korean Peninsula and last-minute decision to withdraw the order to strike Iran in his first term must be admired. Trump’s decision to fire his “hawkish” National Security Advisor John Bolton during that situation suggests that he opposed war in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East. Reportedly, Bolton was aggressive in pushing war and later advised then President Trump to employ the ‘Libya Model’ of unilateral denuclearization for North Korea and the ‘Iraq Method’ for Iran. Trump is said to have rejected both the outrageous prospects and avoided the war. Trump instead emphasized the ‘New Method’ for peace negotiations. He is expected to use that ‘New Method’ in his second term to bring peace around the world, although what that ‘New Method’ is still not known. Optimistically, it can be asserted that Trump does not want war. Yet the crucial concern is- does Trump want absolute peace and wish to preserve an essence of stable global order?

The president-elect has pledged to put an end to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He is expected to advocate for a similar course of action to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and establish enduring peace in the Middle East.

Whether Trump truly wants absolute peace and steady international order, he needs to start peace negotiations from Beijing. To date, the legitimacy of Pyongyang and Kremlin peace negotiations has been contingent on how smoothly Beijing’s trade operates. Thus, Trump must first make real headway in settling the trade and tariff issues pertaining to China. Similarly, the US-North Korea and US-Iran negotiations must be conducted sensibly through diplomatic and political channels, else North Korea and Iran could rise as strong contenders not only to the US allies in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East, but also to the US itself.  

Iran asserts that it is a powerful country (more so than Iraq was) and has the ability to retaliate for any strikes against the US allies. Tehran has maintained good relations with the Kremlin, Beijing, and Ankara, which could make Washington feel weaker than all the former four combined. North Korea is equally marshaling the clout of missile and nuclear technology and showcasing to Washington that Pyongyang is not alone in world politics, as it has been strongly backed up by Beijing and the Kremlin. North Korea and China are “as close as lips and teeth, communist brothers in arms…,” as Mao Zedong put it. Strategically, Pyongyang and Tehran assume that they both are as strong as Washington. While the US, under Trump 2.0, is likely to create a huge gap of trust with its allies and multilateral communities, its adversaries could take advantage of gradually waning American strength.

Chinese people are reportedly very appreciative of Donald Trump's China policy, despite the fact that it was largely humiliating; this could have led to China taking a more focused approach to accomplishing its economic, technological, and diplomatic and foreign policy goals. Since China’s opening up, the US and China have maintained good trade relations despite their long standing political rivalry. President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to play a statesmanship role in fostering friendly, vibrant, and harmonious US-China ties, much like President Richard Nixon did in establishing US-China diplomatic relations in the past.

In the face of experiencing two near-death experiences during his election campaign, Trump's tremendous resilience must be cherished. Trump has become more composed, brave, and strong following these failed assassination attempts. He resembles a deceased man who has miraculously come back to life. The way he has got a new life, the similar way he is expected to bring peace, hope, natural life, and aspirations to people around the world with a greater generosity and wider spirit. The rest of the world would be incredibly grateful to Trump if he could, as he previously declared, put an end to the ongoing international conflicts and promote amicable US-China relations. Essentially, if President Trump played a sensible role in bringing international peace, stability, and balanced order, the entire world would applaud him, perhaps not only in this generation but also in the generations to come.

Taking into account sensible geo-location, highly unstable global geopolitical situation, vulnerable digital space, and the magnitude of AI threats, Nepal's security architecture has specific limitations. For Nepal, the conventional idea of security might not be operational. Therefore, it is imperative that Nepal adopt a practical security strategy that involves increased trust, strategic partnerships, and techno-economic cooperation with both its immediate neighbors and other global powers. The most crucial matter is that Nepal should be aware of the geopolitical rivalry between China and India or the US and China and logically implement a policy to balance relations with them.

Nepal should be ready to handle any fallout from occupation of Taiwan, which might result in a massive ‘crossfire’ between China and the US that could directly affect Nepalese security and sovereignty. Nepal would have suffered greatly on all fronts—politically, economically, digitally, physically, and psychologically—if it had not been able to diligently manage the geopolitical balance between the competing superpowers. For Nepal, the most important foreign policy choice would be whether to align with one or remain neutral, while the main concern would be how Nepal could balance between them and defend itself in that circumstance. Both the options, however, would be costlier to Nepal. Perhaps neither China nor the US would ensure Nepalese security in that critical situation. China would accuse Nepal of failing to participate in its Global Security Initiative (GSI) on time, while the United States would accuse Nepal of dwindling to participate in the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) or State Partnership Program (SPP) in advance. Yet, both the superpowers have made an effort to persuade Nepal to support their cause through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to some extent.

Nonetheless, Nepal must assess realistic foreign policy and promote techno-economic cooperation by initiating a ‘better relationship initiative’ with all the major powers, including its immediate neighbors. This could help to alleviate all of those persistent domestic and international challenges and to achieve foreign policy goals. Essentially, Nepal should practice time-sensitive policy to reduce the ‘trust deficit’ with its immediate neighbors and other powers, which could strengthen bilateral relations and raise the possibility of applied security and stability.

The author is a techno-geopolitical analyst and geostrategic thinker