Finding a foreign policy
Richard Fulton
Congress is on a break so the focus has switched to foreign affairs. This is particularly so due to the Syrian bombing and the consequent visit of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow.
Tensions have been high between the two countries since President Trump decided to punish Syria for its chemical attack with a bombing raid on the Syrian air strip that was the source of the planes used in the chemical attack.
After years of Donald Trump insisting that the United States should not get involved in Syria, particularly from the air, he makes a U-turn with the use of missiles on Syria.
It has been reported that he was influenced by his daughter who found the pictures of the children from the attack abhorrent (as did we all of course). But this seems an emotional foundation for this policy reversal not a rational one.
Indeed, it is difficult to tell what the policy of the administration is in regard to Syria. The policy changes depending upon who is presenting that policy.
Nikki Haley, the outspoken UN ambassador, gives a hard-line position that indicates that the U.S. policy is to get rid of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad. His removal is a priority, she said.
Rex Tillerson does not seem to agree. He “hoped” that the Syrian people would get rid of him. Still, at a meeting in Italy of the G7, a group of American allies, on his way to the Russian face-to-face he seemed to have broadened American policy. He said at a site of WW II atrocities that “… we re-dedicate ourselves to holding to count any and all who commit crimes against innocents anywhere in the world.”
This seems more like a policy of making America the world’s international policeman. What happened to Trump’s pledge to make his policies based upon “America first?
Within this confusing array of Tillerson’s pronouncements, it should be noted, he maintains that getting rid of ISIS is still America’s number one priority.
As for the Secretary of Defense James Mattis, he says that ISIS is our number one priority but adds that if Syria uses chemical weapons again they “will pay a very, very stiff price.”
President Trump seems unable to get his team to focus a unified policy even when he states that America has no plans to be drawn further into the Syrian war. To confuse things further his spokesman, Sean Spicer, said in a press briefing that use “anywhere” of barrel bombs (a favorite technique of Syria) as well as chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Is this the U.S. as policeman doctrine again?
President Putin kept Tillerson waiting all day last Wednesday before having a rather frosty meeting with him. His foreign minister had already warned the U.S. against striking Syria again. Russia’s support for Syria remains strong it would appear.
This is a delicate dance of diplomacy. But what are our friends, let alone Russia, to think of American foreign policy towards Syria (and even the world as a whole)? And in the midst of all this Trump met with the leader of China Xi Jinping to talk about trade and North Korea. What must he be thinking of the ability of the United States to establish a coherent foreign policy?
President Trump must also be trying to fold into his foreign policy gropings the feelings of the American political environment. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found only 51% of Americans approved of the Syrian strike. There is significant resistance to further foreign military adventures.
It seems to be time for President Trump to stop using a foreign policy of tweets and to round up his foreign policy team and try to get them to sing to the same tune.
Richard Fulton is an emeritus professor of political science.
