“My style of deal-making
is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep
pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for
less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want”.
Donald
J. Trump, “The Art of the Deal”
Alphen, Netherlands. 6
January. Giving evidence to Congress yesterday leaders of the US intelligence
community were clear; Russia was not only complicit in the election-warping theft
of data and its release, Moscow is a “full-scope cyber-actor” engaged in a cyber offensive against the United States. In other words, Russia is using cyber as
statecraft as part of a concerted anti-American geopolitical campaign. And yet, President-elect
Trump seems to reject much of this assessment. Why?
Geopolitics is the
competition of and for power. The successful conduct of geopolitics is driven
by a clear understanding of a state’s interests, a proper perception of relative
power and weakness, driven forward by well-considered policy, and applied via
well-crafted strategy underpinned by an appropriate mix of hard and soft power
tools and instruments of which cyber is now but one. The aim of geopolitics is
to shape the choices of others in pursuit of those interests. Central to the successful conduct of
geopolitics is in turn a proper understanding of the strategic environment, the likely
choices and capabilities of adversary states and actors, and indeed those that
lead them. Consequently, the gathering of information and the expertise to
interpret it are the stuff of ‘intel’. Knowledge and understanding are
strategic weapons in geopolitics.
However, if one reads with serious intent President-elect Trump’s recent Twitter storm his ‘beef’ with the US intelligence community
seems to run far deeper than concerns that the intelligence community is seeking to de-legitimise his November 2016 election victory. There is profound ‘cultural’ dissonance
between Trump’s understanding of geopolitics and that of much of the Washington
policy establishment. For the status quo latter American geopolitics concerns the
establishment and maintenance of strategic relationships with friendly states
and actors vital to the securing of American interests. For the radical Trump geopolitics
seems rather to simply be an extension of his real estate business, with the world as
real estate.
Cultural friction is not
the only issue between Trump and High Washington. President-elect Trump seems
also to conflate his determination to ‘clear out the swamp’, with his rejection
of intelligence assessments, and his desire to reform US intelligence efforts. Let
me try and untangle the Trump conflation.
That US intelligence
structures need reform is a moot point. There is no question that since the
creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the wake of
911, to better co-ordinate the efforts of the many agencies in the domain of ‘intel’,
there have been occasions when intelligence assessments and analysis have been politicised.
The structure is also top heavy and critically the CIA’s vital Directorate of
Operations has withered. However, the need for agency reform has nothing whatsoever
to do with the US intelligence assessment of Russian complicity in the 2016
cyber-attack on American democracy, most of which comes from the National Security Agency (NSA). If Trump wants that evidence ‘re-scrubbed’ he
should speak to Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. The British also have
clear evidence of Russia’s 2016 cyber-offensive, and I am sure Prime Minister
May would be only happy to share that information post the January 20th
inauguration as part of the new ‘special relationship’.
What this rumpus really
reveals is Donald J. Trump’s understanding of geopolitics is vastly different
from that of High Washington. In Art of
the Deal Trump states, “…listen to your gut, no matter how good something
sounds on paper”. Trump has repeatedly said during the transition that he sees
his strength as a deal-maker. In real estate the deal is the end in and of
itself, with relationships merely a ‘beautiful’ means to that end. However, geopolitics
are not iterative they are constant, meaning that relationships are as
important as ends. Indeed, in geopolitics means and ends are essentially the
same thing, with relationships built on years of analysis-led mutual understanding.
If President Trump sees
geopolitics as merely a series of trade-offs then the world is in for a rough
few years. For example, if President
Trump seeks a deal with Putin over combatting Islamic State, would he in return
accept Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and much of Eastern Ukraine? Will he
offer Europe a continued American security guarantee but only in return for much
more money spent by Europeans on their own defence, and on condition they offer
more support for what he deems to be America’s interests? Art of the Deal suggests that implicit in any of those ‘deals’ would be the constant threat that he could abrogate all and any of them at any time if he did not
get what he wanted, as he pushed for ever more. Art of the Deal certainly implies he will be anti-EU. He would far rather
have a group of weak European satellites subject to his will, than a
co-ordinated group that could act as both partner and competitor. If so, NATO
would only be of utility to Trump as a tool for ensuring European compliance as
the supplicant partner in a new transatlantic ‘deal’.
However, it is his
relationship with China that is likely to be the biggest challenge for the
Trump ‘doctrine’ of geopolitics. Donald Trump is instinctively attracted to those with a
ruthless appetite for and understanding of power. That is why he is a ‘friend’ of Putin. However,
Beijing is far more complicated and sophisticated than one-man Moscow. Like Beijing and Moscow Art of the Deal suggests that
Trump geopolitics would also be instinctively drawn to the idea that might is
right, with Western-led institutions seen merely as constraints on his deal-making
action.
What allies need to understand is what matters to Trump. Trump’s overarching aim
is to secure and maintain his own power and wealth. America is a means to that
end. Preserving his voter-base will thus be central to Trump geopolitics. A
trade deal with China is central to that ambition. However, to get such a ‘deal’
with China will demand trade-offs. What would those trade-offs be? Would be implicitly accept China’s absurdly grand
self-proclaimed sphere of interest in East Asia in much the same way he is
about to legitimate Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the
Middle East? What would he want in return? China to stop using competitive
devaluations of its currency in a de facto geo-economic ‘war’ with the US? China to enter into a bilateral trade deal with the US to replace the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, which the rest of Asia-Pacific simply be forced to accept their 'place' in the new Pacific order? He says he wants China to thwart the nuclear
ambitions of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un but in return for what? Would be implicitly accept that
Taiwan's future is an internal Chinese matter? They must be quite nervous in Taipei
right now.
Yesterday it was
announced that two Russian warships had arrived in the Philippines for
‘exercises’. President Putin has sent those warships deep into the Pacific because
he sees a strategic and political vacuum developing due to America’s retreat
from geopolitics. Traditionally, American presidents have prevented the
emergence of such vacuums by establishing early a series of foreign and
security principles or 'doctrines' that make it clear to the world where America
sees it vital interests, and which in turn are reinforced by a series of alliances and relationships.
If, as seems likely,
President Trump abandons a ‘doctrine’ in favour of a series of iterative deals
he will help deepen the emerging vacuum because neither allies nor adversaries
will have any certainty as to the nature or extent of America’s commitment to them
or indeed anything else. To say this would be somewhat of a paradox is an understatement;
that is precisely what happened on President Obama’s watch with a White House
that had neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, just values…and vague
ones at that.
President-elect Trump
must realise and quickly that the White House cannot play petty politics with
geopolitics. There are brave Americans risking their lives and their freedom
daily to give the Office of the President the information it needs for the
Commander-in-Chief to successfully conduct geopolitics and, when the time
inevitably comes, make some very big calls. And, there could well be a very big
call to make during President Trump’s first year in office if North Korea proves it
can place a nuclear warhead atop a missile capable of reaching Seattle.
In geopolitics gut
feeling is never enough. Indeed, successful geopolitics demands far more than the art of the
deal. ‘Deals’, however clever, are often the antithesis of geopolitics because in the
absence of principles of political realism they destroy good, long-term relationships
with friends, too often in favour of bad, short-term relationships with (excuse
me) assholes.
Relationships not deals are
the key to successful geopolitics as President Donald J. Trump will soon discover…along
with the rest of us!
Julian
Lindley-French
