Bartering Interests: Trump and the Political Realism

Although the vision of the "new realism" theory of the structure of the international system and the nature of international relations has been subjected to a continuous wave of criticism since the international system turned unipolar, which includes accusing it of bias towards the great and major powers and reducing the role of the rest of the countries, the course of events since Trump's return to the US presidency reinforces this vision and proves the importance of the foundations on which it is based.

"New realism" is based on five basic foundations. First, the world of international politics suffers from chaos resulting from the absence of an organizing body; a central global government, tasked and qualified to control the pace of international relations and impose world peace. Second, because of this absence, the struggle over limited resources controls international relations, which are driven by the interests of the conflicting parties, and moral considerations are absent from them, since achieving the interest is a goal that surpasses any consideration. Third, states form the basis of the international system and its most important actors, but dominance over it is centered in the great and major states, whose interactions, competitive and consensual, control the nature of emerging international relations. Fourth, a state can only be protected in a chaotic world by relying on itself, and it has no higher goal than being constantly preoccupied with maximizing its power, since its permanent mission in a world of conflicting interests and haunted by suspicion and doubt about the intentions of others, is not only to prepare for war, but to do everything it can to enhance its ability to win it when it occurs. Fifth, the best that can be obtained in this case of permanent turmoil in the world’s situation is a fragile international system in which world peace is achieved through a balance of power equation that guarantees mutual interests between the parties of the great and major states. But this equation is not absolute or fixed, but rather changes due to the changes that occur in the power of these countries, leading to an imbalance, which results in the opening of the latent conflict, which then ends, and the system settles on a new position, after reaching a new understanding. The international system is currently formed from a pyramid at the top of which sits one superpower, America, which enjoys an excess of economic and military power that no one has yet matched, and two major countries, China, the world's second-largest economy, but with limited military capabilities that are growing rapidly, on the one hand, and Russia, the military giant due to its nuclear arsenal, but an economic dwarf compared to America and China. This trio is followed by a limited group of powerful countries, some of which are based on their accumulated status from the past, such as the countries of Western Europe, and some of which are emerging in their regions and seeking to establish their new status, such as India and Brazil. The base layer of the pyramid is filled with the rest of the countries with limited influence on the international level, crushed and preoccupied with searching for a role that will help them repel foreign interventions and preserve themselves.

Since the overthrow of international bipolarity in the early nineties, Russia has been trying hard to restore as much of its lost international status as possible with the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, America, which has monopolized the international system, was not very concerned about the Russian attempts, as it considered them to have a limited impact on its status, due to the weakness of Russia's economic capacity, when compared to the real threat posed to it by China, due to its great economic power. Therefore, American interest has focused since the beginning of the millennium on containing China, its main competitor, and the one with the real potential to undermine its status, and share the top of the international system with it, if not completely displace it. Within the framework of this triangle of unequal conflict, the contexts of current international relations can be understood, and what is happening in different regions of the world in terms of American repositioning. After accusing the Biden administration of undermining America's international standing and causing a decline in its ability to resolve the tripartite conflict in its favor, Trump returned to the presidency armed, with a realistic approach par excellence, with the vision of "America First", and determined to restore his country's unique position. Although since assuming office, he has been taking measures and steps that appear to be inconsistent or inconsistent with each other, within the framework of a chaotic policy with no specific goal, in reality they all flow into one track, which is to fortify America internally to confront the rise of China, and to enhance its external capabilities to limit the continued expansion of China around the world. To achieve this goal, and based on his absolute belief that conflict, not cooperation with others, is the basis of international relations, and that reliance on force is the basis that determines position on the international level, Trump is carrying out an intensive campaign to rearrange the internal situation of the American state, including combating illegal immigration, "cleansing" the bureaucracy, and reducing its expenses "to be in line with his vision of America restoring its own strength. Externally, he is following several paths. The first is imposing customs tariffs on parties trading with his country, regardless of the traditional relationship with allies and traditional trading partners, some of whom are accused of leaking Chinese products to the American market. The second is improving his country's defense position by demanding control over the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada, which has so far achieved Panama's withdrawal from China's project called the "Belt and Road Initiative", and the readiness of the Greenland and Denmark autonomous authority to open negotiations to expand the American base on the island. The third is resolving the conflict in the Middle East in favor of Israel, reducing the status and role of Iran, an ally of China, ensuring American interests in the region, and achieving its stability and dependence by expanding the normalization of Arab-Israeli relations. The fourth is shaking the Russian-Chinese alliance by ending the Russian-Ukrainian war in Russia's favor, and enticing Russia to turn westward, by re-normalizing relations with it, and later lifting sanctions on it. Because the international system, according to the "new realism", is currently determined based on the relationship between the big three, Trump did not care about China's position, which he knew would remain confined to the circle of traditional condemnation, or the position of the Arab parties, which he does not give much importance or attention to, when he announced his intention to expel the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and resettle them in Egypt and Jordan. Rather, he placed the burden on them to present an alternative plan for him, after appointing himself the reference to accept or reject it. As for Russia, which has an old interest in the region, its crossing to warm waters, after losing Assad's presence in Syria, and is still groaning under the weight of its ongoing war in Ukraine, he opened a dialogue with it that began in Riyadh, exploiting its weakening position, to conclude a direct deal with it that would be profitable for both parties, without the slightest interest in involving America's most committed and important allies, and the stakeholders from the Ukrainians and Europeans, but rather excluding them and jumping over their interests. America's interest is above all considerations, and as long as it is the most powerful country, it can impose its will on the followers, who will have no choice but to follow the path of appeasement.

The meeting between the US and Russian foreign ministers in Riyadh is interesting, as it represents a turning point that heralds the end of a period of tension between two international poles, and the beginning of paving the way for a new phase. When this happens between the “big boys,” others with less power and status in the international system should be concerned because they will be the ones to pay the price of the “barter deal” that will redraw the parameters of the exchange of interests between the two parties. If Russia wants to keep the land it occupied in the war in Ukraine, and Trump is prepared to give it the right to do so in order to dismantle its alliance with China, how can Russia reject what Trump intends to do in terms of recognizing Israel’s annexation of Palestinian lands, specifically in the West Bank?! It was striking that the official US envoy to Ukraine was absent from the Riyadh meeting, while the US envoy to the Middle East attended. What was even more interesting was the Kremlin spokesman’s response to an inquiry about the official position on Trump’s “project” for the Gaza Strip, by asking for a pause until aspects of it are still unclear! The "Riyadh meeting" and the arrangements that will follow and result from it remind us of the Yalta Conference that was held in 1945, which included America, Britain and the Soviet Union, and ultimately led to the division of Europe into spheres of influence between the parties. The difference between what happened then and what is happening now is that China, the third pole in the current international system, is currently the target of what will happen between America and Russia in terms of appeasement.

The lesson to be drawn from all of this is that wars are not the important thing in demarcating or re-demarcating international or even regional relations, no matter how many tragedies and horrors they entail. Rather, what is important is the settlements that result from the balance of power that they establish.

So do not rush to make judgments and dispute with each other about them, because soon the features of the settlement will become clear, the cover will be removed, and the door will be closed on continued speculation.

This is the solid truth of "new realism": power is the basis, and the interests of the "big ones" always undermine the rights of the "little ones."