Trump’s Revisitionist Foreign Policy. Its Consequences for International Relations.
The reemergence of Mr. Trump in Washington, D.C sent shock waves across the comity
of nations. In the next four years international politics could be uncertain as President
Trump asserts and pursues his brinkmanship policy agenda around the world. However, it
might trigger-off future wider confrontation with other actors in the international system.
His foreign policy goal is America first.
Trump’s foreign policy agenda drives will come head-on with other state’s national
interests. It could lead to a chain of reactions from those states Trump aggressively wants
to undermine or encroach on in his revisionist foreign policy formulations. Those states
will resist or fight back when it concerns issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity. For
instance, in Panama where the Panama Canal is situated, Trump told the world that he
would take the Canal by force. The brinkmanship policy of Washington would eventually
lead to the disruption and shut down of the Canal route. It will have grave consequences
for global trade flows and the passage of ships through the Canal. Why the bellicosity
towards the small state of Panama. Because the Chinese, the Russians and Cubans are now
registering their impacts/interests significantly in Panama, as such it is a major threat to
America’s interests in the region, as Trump notes. One might argue, that the U.S. exercises
of ‘Gun Boat Diplomacy’ for decades in that region is a bad example and out of fashioned
policy of an hyperpower to continuously undermine states’ interests in the Western
Hemisphere, in its geopolitical and geoeconomic calculations. America’s
realism/intervention for decades had led to regime change, political and economic
distortions in that part of the world. Certainly, decades of underdevelopment in such
conditions they are being pushed to vote with foot in order to reach America.
Separately, Trump’s annexation policy drives would threaten the international order. He
threatened to take Groenland (Greenland) a territory of Denmark by force. That if Denmark
refused to sell the Island he would send in the U.S. military to take it by force. Indeed,
Trump’s behaviour or action can be compared to Hitler’s policies and actions in the 1930s
that led to the Anschluss (Annexation) of Austria in 1933. In the 19th Century, Imperial
1
Russia sold Alaska to the U.S., it was not done by threats or the use of force to acquire it.
In a worst case scenario, if President Trump really carried out his threats, what, then, would
be the response of Denmark whose sovereignty and territorial integrity to be breached or
violated will definitely resists U.S.’ colonialism (hegemonization). Will the EU provides
the necessary assists, including arms, sanctions, and political and diplomatic supports to
Denmark at the United Nations, UN, against Washington? What would be Russia’s
reactions over America inroads into Greenland? Infact, Putin laughs at the double standards
of the EU for failing to criticize and ostracise Washington from participating in the comity
of nations. It must be noted that the U.S., EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
NATO, are fighting a proxy war against Russia by using Ukraine.
America’s realism as fostered by Trumpization of global politics could cause tensions in
North America. His revisionist foreign policy goal to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the
Gulf of America and also to make Canada the 51st state of America poses challenges in
international relations. It demonstrates disregards to Mexico and Canada’s rights, the other
two neighbour states in North America. Moreover, trade issues will be another major area
of concerns to states, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union, EU, the
African Union, AU, the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, BRICS,
among others. President Trump threatened to use tariffs as an instrument of policy against
any state or economic grouping that undermines America’s national interests. On February
1, 2025, Trump imposed tariffs on Canada: 25%; on Mexico: 25%, and on China: 10%.
They are the largest trading partners of the U.S. This is the weaponization of tariffs on
international trade relations in terms of geopolitics and geoeconomic. Truth, the
mercantilist approach by Washington would impair global competitiveness and trade flows
among countries. Those countries from the Global South (majority), particularly the ones
from Africa should put their economies inorder to avoid being hurt by the tariffization of
Trump’s exports policies.
Again, in his first term, he disregarded international institutions like the United Nations,
UN, WTO, and the World Health Organization, WHO. International regimes: on
environment, trade, health, aid, immigration, etc were also disregarded. Even now, he has
2
threatened the WHO to withdraw Americans and stop its financial contributions to the
institution.
The consequences on International Relations
1. Certainly, if President Trump carried out his threats to control the Panama Canal by
force, the country will resist the military action. Public opinion would turn against
Washington behaviour of trying to impose its straitjacket and hegemony on a small
independent state. At the UN the comity of nations, especially those from the Global
South (Majority) would call for sanctions against the U.S. How, then, will those
from the Global North, particularly the EU react to U.S. violation of Panama’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity? Nothing
2. President Trump threatened he would take control of Greenland by force, sending
the U.S. military to take over the Island which belonged to Demark a member of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and the EU. For instance, Denmark
and Finland both rushed to join NATO in 2023, when Russia invaded Ukraine,
Denmark plans to beef-up its armed forces and also moved troops to Greenland in
case of any eventuality or move by Trump. The EU promised to assist or support
Denmark against Trump’s imperialist tendencies. Why is he interested in
Greenland? Because of geopolitics and strategic minerals, including oil in the area.
Let’s take a worst case scenario, if the situation in Greenland deteriorated it might
affect the transatlantic alliance relations between the U.S. and Europe, since 1948
secured the West from the defund Soviet Union and/or Russia’s inroads.
Additionally, NATO in disarray would not be able to pose credible threats to Russia
and China in their foreign policies’ adventures in the next decade.
3. As the U.S. and Europe face-up over Greenland, Trumpization of global politics
could force China to embark on aggressive military adventures in the South China
Sea. China takes cognizance of what is going on in Europe could invade Taiwan
and thus change the geostrategic and geopolitical structures of the region with grave
consequences on international relations. For decades, Washington official policy
had been to come to the aid and support of Taiwan in case the Island (country) is
3
attacked by Beijing. Certainly, China military aggression in the region can also pose
a threat to other neighouring countries like the Philippines that has a territorial
(maritime) dispute with Beijing. How will the U.S. reacts? Moreover, the
implications for Ukraine could be severed as war implement may stop coming in
from the U.S. to Kyiv and also Moscow could take advantage in its expansionist
drive.
Finally, Trumpization of global politics sent shock waves across the world. Tariff is
the diplomatic policy tools deployed by Trump to destabilize the existing global
order to enable him create a New World Order to be led by America’s realism.
Tariffs aggressively used could negatively undermine international trade and,
especially hurt those economies in Africa.
Victor E. Clark
Professor of International Relations
Delta State University,
Abraka-Nigeria.
February 19, 2025
Comments