The return of Donald Trump to the White House has raised many concerns because of his unpredictable nature, blunt language, and presumable belief in the “madman theory”. Trump’s controversial stance on the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and immigration makes one wonder what the future holds. It also forces one to think how Trump’s policies will reshape the world around us. Arguably one of the most unpredictable US Presidents, Trump, with his controversial stance and bold moves, could either drive the US foreign policy in a different direction or set the stage for significant global challenges, particularly with regard to democracy, human rights, and the rule-based world order.
In his second coming, Trump is inheriting a different world, with two regional wars ongoing, both of which have the US playing a crucial role. Many believe that his transactional approach and unorthodox positions could affect the nature of these conflicts. It is hard to forecast whether he will genuinely make an effort for peace, be it in West Asia or in Ukraine, but he is going to be an important factor for sure.
For one, Trump prefers “rapid resolution” of the conflicts, which is in sharp contrast to the stance of the Biden administration. It will, therefore, be interesting to watch how much effort he might be willing to expend so as to persuade Israel to halt its bombing of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.
But Trump faces a tough challenge: he has to balance his steadfast support for Israel with efforts to revive the Abraham Accords, which were brokered by his son-in-law Jared Kushner in 2020. The Abraham Accords, seen as the cornerstone of Trump’s legacy for legitimising Israel in West Asia, have been thrown into disarray following the October 7 attack.
Trump’s approach towards Palestine exemplifies a dichotomous strategy: on the one hand, he promised to facilitate investment of $50 billion to prop up the Palestinian economy; on the other hand, his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, reversing seven decades of American foreign policy, demonstrates his duplicitous tendencies.
In fact, Trump went a step back in 2018, when he halted all American funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is responsible for extending aid to millions of Palestinians. Another of Trump’s significant moves was to recognise Israel’s authority over the disputed Golan Heights, a decision that puts the geopolitical stability of the entire region at risk.
Trump has openly voiced his support for Israel and if his administration gives carte blanche to Israel to expand control over Palestinian territories, it is likely to escalate the conflict.
Trump and Netanyahu
Amid the trade wars, the climate crisis, and two major conflicts in Europe and West Asia, can Trump persuade his close ally—Benjamin Netanyahu, now declared an international war criminal by the International Criminal Court—to adhere to the two-state solution? Or will he allow Israel to continue building illegal settlements in Palestinian territories, risking further escalation in the war?
Trump’s appointing of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and Mike Huckabee as US Ambassador to Israel, who have unequivocally opposed a ceasefire in Gaza and repeatedly supported Israeli settlements in the West Bank, may indicate the direction of the US policy with regard to Palestine. Similarly, Elise Stefanik, Trump’s choice as US Ambassador to the UN, who referred to UNRWA as a “terrorist front”, is expectedly not going to push Israel to cooperate with UNRWA’s humanitarian relief in Gaza and the West Bank. This is bound to worsen the humanitarian crisis in the war-torn region.
An year since the October 7 attack, the US has spent at least $17.9 billion on military aid to Israel. Here, a demonstration in London on May 11, 2024.
| Photo Credit:
HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP
Another pressing issue will be arms sales by the US and allocation of $17.9 billion in military aid to Israel after the October 7 attacks, which has caused the death of thousands of Palestinians. Israel’s military crackdown on Hamas and its leaders has been marked by deliberate targeting of civilians and essential infrastructure, with instances of sexual violence, usage of starvation as method of warfare, killing/harassment of journalists, destruction of hospitals, and killing of aid workers. Besides, Israel is accused of using lethal weapons against civilians and forcing displacements that have led to a profound economic crisis.
US support to Israel in the form of advanced weapons, privileged access to defence technology, and diplomatic backing for war efforts as it engages in killing unarmed civilians in occupied Palestine in a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law and is in stark contrast to the allocation of humanitarian aid to Palestine. In effect, the US appears to be offering only a Band-Aid solution instead of encouraging genuine ceasefire negotiations or a long-lasting solution to the conflict.
Highlights
- Trump faces a tough challenge: he has to balance his steadfast support for Israel with efforts to revive the Abraham Accords, which were brokered by his son-in-law Jared Kushner in 2020.
- The Abraham Accords, seen as the cornerstone of Trump’s legacy for legitimising Israel in West Asia, have been thrown into disarray following the October 7 attack.
- Trump’s approach towards Palestine exemplifies a dichotomous strategy: on the one hand, he promised to facilitate investment of $50 billion to prop up the Palestinian economy; on the other hand, his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Further, Trump’s family connections, particularly through Kushner, reveal substantial involvement in the Israeli real estate sector, with the Kushner Companies forming strategic alliances with prominent Israeli firms such as the Steinmetz Group and businessmen like Raz Steinmetz.
Kushner, who also served as the senior foreign policy adviser during Trump’s first presidency, has close ties with Israeli political figures, including Benjamin Netanyahu. He is also well connected to top-notch pro-Israeli billionaires and mega donors like Sheldon Adelson, Miriam Adelson, and Elon Musk, who have financially backed Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns. This also raises questions about the fairness of a proposed peace deal between Israel and Russia.
On Ukraine, Trump has consistently emphasised in his election campaigns the need to end the war and expressed his desire to lead diplomatic efforts for peace. What casts doubts about his credibility and commitment towards pursuing a “final peace deal” is his vocal criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his liking for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his latest proposal to broker a self-styled “fair deal”. Whether Trump will leverage military support to Ukraine as a bargaining tool to engage Putin in the negotiations or stick to his earlier rhetoric of scaling down military support to Ukraine remains ambiguous. Halting military assistance to Ukraine would have far-reaching consequences for the country and pose a significant security risk for Europe.
What could potentially change the trajectory of US foreign policy and pose a substantial threat to global affairs is Trump’s conservative tendencies and his affinity towards populist and nationalist leaders across the world. In his first term, Trump had little impact on politics in the Western Balkans. But this time, Trump’s comeback and his deepening relations with autocrats like Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Aleksander Vučić of Serbia, and Milord Dodik of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republika Srpska) are likely to embolden these leaders to push their nationalist agenda forward.
Donald Trump proposes to continue his hardline migration policies upon returning to office. In picture, a section of fencing on the Mexico border in Ruby, Arizona.
| Photo Credit:
Brandon Bell/Getty Images/AFP
Beyond the shared populist and anti-establishment stances, such alignments can help Vučić to both hold on to power in Serbia and support Trump’s real estate projects in the country. Such an outcome could also make things easier for Dodik with possible lifting of US-imposed sanctions on him. In a nutshell, it would encourage these leaders to sidestep critical issues in the region and instead promote their populist and expansionist agendas.
For instance, the recently adopted “all-Serb declaration”, charted out unlawfully by Serbian nationalists, embodies the long-unfulfilled desire for the unification of Serbian territories and the establishment of Greater Serbia. Such tactics not only undermine the validity of the Dayton Agreement (sponsored by the US to end the Bosnian War of 1992-95) but could result in undoing decades of progress made by both the EU and the West, eventually leading to the disintegration of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Additionally, if the unconventional relationship between Trump and Putin continues, it might lead to an advancement of Serbian geopolitical ambitions in Bosnia. Moreover, the assertion of regional dominance by the deep state of Serbia, the advocacy of territorial swaps in Western Balkans, and the proposed expansionist tactics are incongruous with the principles of regional integration built into the EU. The Russian Orthodox Church backs such strategies in order to disrupt the integration of Western Balkan countries into the EU and the NATO.
Friction between the US and its European allies over NATO and military expenditure can potentially result in a security vacuum in the fragile Western Balkan region. Consequently, it will give illiberal and non-democratic forces such as China and Russia more space to intervene in the social and political affairs of these nations. With the growing influx of Chinese investment and Russian political backing, the autocratic and populist regimes here could be further strengthened, leaving the region ethnically polarised. Any such interventions pose a direct threat to European security while exposing the EU’s weakness as regional security guarantor and leading to its loss of focus on the Western Balkans.
Moreover, Trump’s disdain for traditional political norms, his opposition to democratic structures, and his promotion of short-term national interests over global cooperation are likely to not only damage the US’ reputation in world affairs but might mar transatlantic partnerships as well, which have been the bedrock of European security.
Ambreen Yousuf is a New Delhi-based researcher with specialisation in Western Balkans.
