As a new year dawns, leaders and populations of most countries will be turning their eyes even more sharply towards the United States as a new president assumes office. The fascination about this event, in relation to a country where changes of government are normal and predictable, stems from the fact that the incoming leader of the country, Donald Trump, will, unlike most of his predecessors, have had no experience in senior governmental or political leadership, but now succeeds to the presidential throne on the basis of his experience as one of the leading business personalities in his country.
Observers of Trump’s behaviour since he announced his intention to run for the presidency will, however, have noted that over the course of his campaign and then in the period between the elections and the present, the president-elect will have shown no hesitation in arguing that the lack of previous political or governmental experience wasn’t any kind of negative. Rather he has directed his campaign, from the very beginning of his challenge, at seeking to persuade the American electorate that in his view, the alleged experience of predecessors has not been a major positive in successful management of the government of the United States.
To some extent he has been fortunate in adopting this posture, taking as his point of reference that the leader of the country over the past eight years, a former congressman of limited governmental experience, turned out to have little resistance to his search for election eight years ago. And in addition, Trump has insisted, that unlike the then congressman Barack Obama, he himself has had extensive experience in the management of private economic relations encompassing major areas of the globe and involving, therefore, substantial relationships with political and economic leaders of major countries.
As he has come closer to taking over the presidency, Trump has sought to justify his rationale for leadership of the country in the choice of personnel for leading positions in his government, indicating their extensive experience of dealing with major countries. And indeed many observers in the United States have been surprised that he has had no hesitation in strongly supporting their experiences, and therefore apparent competencies, in dealing, as part of their professional work, with governments of these countries.
Analysts of America’s role in international affairs, now generally concede that the current global environment in which the new president assumes office presents a variety of challenges for the new American leadership. And some critics go as far as claiming that the presidency of Barack Obama has magnified some of those challenges, to the extent that, in their view, the president has not been sufficiently forthright in combating the international activities of a Russia led by Vladimir Putin.
In this regard, it is alleged that in respect of relations with Russia for example, the president has permitted Putin to exercise increasing influence in the Middle East in particular. Critics of Obama claim, taking into account recent experiences of Russia’s activities vis-à-vis the turmoil in Syria for example, that the President has allowed President Putin to gain the upper hand in coming to terms with the turmoil in that country and the surrounding areas, thus creating a situation of loss of American influence in a region deemed to be crucial to the United States’ global leadership.
In that regard, there seems to be some relief at the sight of president-elect Trump appointing to major positions in his Cabinet, individuals who, as business personalities, have had extensive experience in dealing with a Russia asserting itself in the Middle East.
President Obama’s supporters would, however, be alleging that these critics have not taken into account his long-stated view that while the importance of an American presence in critical areas of the globe must be acknowledged, previous American experiences have indicated that there are limits to major activist roles in some areas where the bases of political conflict have really been, and continue to be, local, and really no longer determined by external – in particular major power – contestation.
President Trump will be coming to terms early with the significance of Obama’s perspective as the situation in the Middle East continues to be volatile. He will have to assess a Russia whose foreign policies are no longer dominated by ideological, but pragmatic motivations relating to enhancing a Russian influence diminished in the post Cold War years, during which the country focused on reorganization of its formerly state-dominated economy.
Nearer home, candidate Trump appeared to many observers to be almost seeming to be frightening America’s neighbours by his pronouncements on relations with Latin American countries, in particularly the US’s neighbour Mexico. It has become clearer that then-candidate Trump’s motivation was to use existing relationships with that country as an electoral weapon to draw to his side the fears of American citizens about immigration in particular.
It is, however, most likely the case that while Mexico will naturally be concerned about the evolution of the US policy towards that country, and Mexican diplomacy will certainly be focusing on their country’s options, Trump’s attitude to that country is unlikely to be extended to other major countries of Latin America like Brazil, Argentina and the like; and that even Central American immigration into the US will hardly be a focus of concern of American citizens, and therefore a substantial policy concern of the President.
From a wider hemispheric perspective, that leaves us, in the Caricom arena and immediate environment, to seek to identify whether a President Trump will have a perspective (probably born of any personal economic interest he may have, or have had) on the Caribbean.
To begin with, it is doubtful that he will concern himself with reversing President Obama’s line of policy towards Cuba. His advisers will no doubt instruct him on events in, and policies undertaken by, the government of Venezuela, but he will probably surmise that the current weakness of the Venezuelan economy is a cause for concern mainly to the extent that internal turmoil influences concern in neighbouring Latin American states.
So the responsibility lies with us to seek to influence the new administration that policies of the outgoing administration directed towards the Caribbean, and Caribbean regional integration in particular, are meaningful, and worthy of continued support. And it would appear the Caricom diplomats are moving in that direction.
