US President Donald Trump in his second term is beginning to attract criticism on three counts- his pursuit of the idea of ‘America First’ was pushing the US towards ‘isolationism’, his focus on tariffs was adding to his image as a ‘business leader’ rather than a ‘statesman’ and his Presidency was getting marked for ‘anti-liberalism’ that ran counter to the historical American legacy.
Does President Trump have the intellectual brilliance of a kind that enabled a leader to give the impression of his being ‘unpredictable’, ‘arbitrary’ and even terse to the point of sounding ‘offensive’ whereas in reality there was a ‘method in his madness’ as he towed a singular path for rectifying governance, controlling financial profligacy and not letting the world take the US for granted? Trump certainly would not like the US to lose the tag of being the first superpower. He has shrewdly identified the world problems that came in the way of American supremacy and has unwaveringly gone tough on them. These are Islamic Terrorism, a determined China trying to get the better of other countries through investment and trade to take the economic route to becoming the second superpower and the undue advantage friendly countries took of the US while projecting the latter as the leader of the Free World.
That President Donald Trump is willing to put all his energy into revolutionising America, is seen in his engagement in an astonishingly wide range of international crises and negotiations in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
In his time the White House is pivoting many crucial diplomatic initiatives. He is catalysing many negotiations and has not done too badly in sorting out things because of his willingness to do a course correction if the move ran into a dead end. Some of this was evident after he advanced the claim that he had brought about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan when the two countries were in the midst of a military confrontation following the terrorist attack at Pahalgam.
In his innate desire to take credit for finding geopolitical solutions he even talked of mediating between India and Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir but quickly realised that the suggestion was going to create a huge problem for India-US relations. He therefore lost no time in stating that the two countries should talk to each other directly.
Trump Administration cannot be faulted for taking interest in the matter of India-Pak military confrontation after a desperate Pakistan had approached it in the wake of damage inflicted by India on several Pak air bases during the escalating situation.
India’s acceptance of a plea for ceasefire made by Pak at DGMO level, can also not be interpreted as a sign of weakness of any sort. Operation Sindoor was meant to make punitive strikes at as many as nine terrorist bases beyond LoC and inside Pakistan identified by our Intelligence. A failed attempt of the Pak army subsequently, to make a drone attack on India invited a deadlier missile strike on the leading air bases of Pakistan, pushing the Pakistan army into a situation where it was driven to call for a halt on the military operations.
The response from India can be said to have added to our credentials as a responsible peace-loving nation. Modi government’s claim that Operation Sindoor was a success stands to reason- the political slugfest resulting from it at home can be seen, to an extent, as a manifestation of our domestic politics.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy seems to be flawed for the reason that it did not get all its components right. ‘Making America Great Again’ (MAGA) depended as much on the military and technological might of the US together with its economic power gained largely through trade, as on the ‘patterns of interdependence’ that strengthened America. Trump has apparently given total attention to the first two at the cost of the last prerequisite of US strength being sustained by its links with the democracies of Europe and Asia.
President Trumps’s idea of withdrawing from international institutions and forums promoting liberal values in pursuit of ‘America First’ doctrine, may yield short-term financial gains but they would undermine the cause of US supremacy as the leader of the democratic world.
If all that Trump was doing was only a series of immediate moves meant to correct the trade deficit and inject cost-effectiveness in governance and USAID projects, this could be understood. But there should be no doubt in his mind that MAGA in the long term would rest essentially on a willing acceptance of the US as a repository of human and democratic values, by others- in contrast to the rising autocratic regimes.
Trump’s handling of the world’s trouble spots including the Middle East where Israel’s military offensive in Gaza had raised serious humanitarian concerns, can be said to be upfront and even astute. His methods are direct-his focus has always been on his personal role in driving diplomatic initiatives- and they indicate his strong political will and determination to pursue what he thought was good for America’s economy and business.
His visit to the Arab states, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar who were known to be traditional US allies-led to these countries signing deals investing trillions of dollars in US.
He announced lifting of sanctions on Syria which is now ruled by a non-radical President-Ahmad Al Sharra- and this led to celebrations in that country.
Trump remains firmly in support of Israel and obviously endorses the latest Israeli plan of maintaining a military presence in Gaza in a corridor along its border. Trump had once talked of commercially developing Gaza as a riviera of tourist attraction and he perhaps still sees economic benefit in the idea that Israel should create a trouble-free territory on the Israel-Palestine border.
A radicalised Hamas had invited retaliation from Israel for its brutal terror attack on October 7, 2023 in which 1200 Israelis were killed and 250 more including women were kidnapped.
Israel had the right to militarily pursue Hamas in Gaza from where the terrorist outfit was operating using underground tunnels. However, mass- scale killing of Palestinians including a large number of women and children went far beyond the limits of understandable collateral damage.
Iran taking Hamas in its embrace must have added to the anger of President Trump against that country. Trump nevertheless continued to try to get Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions just as he expressed hope of bringing Ukraine-Russia ‘war’ to an end.
The US President must be given credit for single-handedly following up on what he thought was good for his country and directly guiding the diplomatic, economic and governance-related policies with zeal and confidence.
India has handled its relationship with the US in President Trump’s second term with wisdom, strategic understanding and a firm belief that a natural friendship between the two largest democracies would only do good to the world.
India has the right, at the same time, to reject what went against mutually beneficial India-US relations or what seemed too arbitrary for a healthy bilateral friendship.
Trump’s attitude of not letting go of the traditional US empathy for Pakistan could have been motivated by a desire to stop the steady drift of Pakistan towards the Chinese camp. American hand can be clearly seen in the grant of large funds to Pakistan by international institutions, to bail out that country in a critical financial crisis.
Indian diplomacy should focus on not letting President Trump’s trade interests in Pakistan come in the way of India’s strategic friendship with the US. We should take advantage of the fact that Trump remained firmly opposed to radical Islamic terrorism and pitch the line that terrorism of any kind including the Pak-directed cross-border terror in Kashmir should be met with zero tolerance.
(The writer is a former Director Intelligence Bureau)
