Has “America first” impaired US leadership?
This week on the News and Information Study Group, our participatory YouTube Live Show, we are reading Reimagining Great Power Relations Part I by Ambassador Charles W. Freeman, Jr.
Freeman asserts that:
As American influence has receded, regional great powers like China, India, Iran, and Russia have begun to consolidate regional state systems centered on themselves. This process was underway even before “America first” impaired U.S. leadership by making American indifference to the interests and concerns of other countries officially explicit. America has now chosen publicly to redefine itself internationally as the foreign relations equivalent of a sociopath[1] — a country indifferent to the rules, the consequences for others of its ignoring them, and the reliability of its word. No nation can now comfortably entrust its prosperity or security to Washington, no matter how militarily powerful it perceives America to be.
What is the evidence of this?
After a number of searches, I tried simply “America first” in quotes which brought me the news. The first article that came up in Google News was:
America sixth: Despite Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan, US sinks 5 places on national brand index. This led me to the actual website of the National Brand Index. We fell to number five mainly because of the Governance category which is defined as: “Public opinion about national government competency and fairness, as well as its perceived commitment to global issues.” If international opinion is that we are declining in governance, it would seem the world may not want us to lead. There is more.
I also found a recent Pew Study from June U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership.
Although this information goes back to Spring 2017, it would seem that this confirms the previous finding. Although what if this is just that people don’t like Trump? The study goes deeper:
Any of these proposals could be interpreted as “America First” and, according to this study, the rest of the world is not having it.
Hurricane Harvey
One measure of International solidarity is what is done in times of trouble. Compared to the massive international response to Katrina, the Harvey response was quite underwhelming:
The European Union sent satellites. In a statement, Mexico offered “help and coordination” to Harvey-ravaged Texas, though they didn’t go into specifics. It’s worth noting, too, that that same statement responded forcefully to a Twitter diatribe from President Trump, who once again demanded that Mexico pay for a border wall and threatened to “terminate” NAFTA. (The State Department has not said whether it will accept aid from Mexico. In a statement, it said “if a need for assistance does arise, we will work with our partners, including Mexico, to determine the best way forward.”)
From Dozens of countries offered help after Hurricane Katrina. After Harvey, not so much by the Washington Post.
A few random data points
Before we finish, I just want to share a few different random data points based on different searches online including: “International response to America first” and “‘America first’s response around the world.” No one of these responses can be seen as proof of anything, but perhaps they can help in painting a story:
If [Trump] follows through — and people have to come to terms with the fact he may well do what he says he’s going to do — then it’s the end of the post-World War II, post-Cold War order and the beginning of a new phase.
Ian Kearns, co-founder of the London-based European Leadership Network.
In Trump’s speech at the United Nations he said: “we cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.” In Trump defends ‘America first’ foreign policy at U.N., threatens to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea by David Nakamura and Anne Gearan of the Washington Post Iranian Leadership’s responses were aggregated:
Iranian leaders sharply rebuked the U.S. president.
In a meeting with American media executives ahead of the speech, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran has complied fully and predicted that the United States will be the loser if it “tramples upon” the agreement.
“Everyone will clearly see that Iran has lived up to its agreements and that the United States is therefore a country that cannot be trusted,” Rouhani said.
On Twitter, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Trump’s threats amount to “ignorant hate speech” that “belongs in medieval times.”
Here are some post election responses from the Washington Post’s After Trump pledges ‘America first,’ the world responds with protests and dismay:
Mexicans awoke Friday to the realization of what many consider a political nightmare — the inauguration of an American president who has taken aim at their economy, their migrants and their shared border.
Literary critic Christopher Domínguez Michael published an op-ed in El Universal simply called, “The saddest day.”
Another columnist in El Universal, Carlos Heredia Zubieta, wrote: “We are immersed in a cultural war. For the first time in decades, the affront unites Mexicans of all social classes.”
Trump’s address — more scripted than his campaign speeches but no less bombastic — left many around the world in open-mouthed wonder.
“I listened to Trump’s inauguration speech dubbed on an Arabic channel — it could easily have been Saddam, Assad or Sisi,” tweeted Mohamad Bazzi, a professor of journalism at New York University who is in Beirut, referring to the late ruler of Iraq and the current presidents of Syria and Egypt.
Nathalie Klüver, a Twitter user from the northern German city of Lübeck, appeared to echo the thoughts of many Germans when she tweeted, “If a German chancellor said at an #inauguration that he wants to make Germany great again — that’s unimaginable.”
and:
After dark in London — as Trump finished speaking — hundreds of placard-bearing protesters massed at the U.S. Embassy to vigorously chant their dismay.
“It’s cold. It’s dark. I’d rather be at home in the warm. But I’m here because I’m only an ordinary person, and I’m frightened,” said 65-year-old retiree Stephanie Clark, mentioning nuclear weapons and climate change as particular areas of concern. “I’m frightened of what Donald Trump and his administration can do.”
There was an edgier tone to protests in the Philippine capital of Manila, where protesters burned an American flag and called on President Rodrigo Duterte to distance himself from Trump.
Marches were also staged in the West Bank city of Nablus, where hundreds of residents paraded Palestinian flags and voiced concern with Trump’s seeming shift toward Israel, including his promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
“He’s not a man of peace,” said 53-year-old Moussa al-Bitouni, who watched as the inauguration was broadcast live in a smoky East Jerusalem cafe. “He doesn’t want to take the path of peace or talk about peace.”
Also:
“Hostile inauguration speech,” former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt wrote on Twitter. “We can’t sit around & hope for US support & cooperation. Europe must take its destiny & security in its own hands.”
Many European leaders offered perfunctory notes of congratulations. Some appeared to be trying to will Trump to behave like a conventional U.S. president.
“With great power comes great responsibility,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite wrote in Twitter. “Confident in global leadership of the USA! Congratulations @realDonaldTrump!”
There was also apprehension in China — though the government was being careful with its response.
China’s foreign ministry has generally maintained an outward appearance of calm in the run-up to Trump’s inauguration, mostly declining to rise to the bait after some of Trump’s most strident tweets. Behind the scenes, though, diplomats in Beijing say the government is very nervous about the prospect of a Trump administration.
The English-language China Daily newspaper said it hoped Trump could display “more statesmanship” after his inauguration but warned that he was “playing with fire” in trying to open the one-China question.
“If Trump is determined to use this gambit on taking office, a period of fierce, damaging interactions will be unavoidable, as Beijing will have no choice but to take off the gloves,” it wrote in an editorial.
