Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Right, just closing the doors. Good evening, everybody, everybody in London, that is. We have a good attendance in the room. Thank you very much for coming. We also have a very strong attendance, I think, online. So, this is a mixed event, in person and online, this evening. It is being livestreamed and we’re going to be discussing the question of how the new administration will reorder US foreign policy. I’m Simon Fraser, I’m going to be chairing this event, and I am the Chair of the Council here at Chatham House.
There are many big issues for us to discuss this evening. A lot of ink has already been spilt in the runup to the election, and certainly this is, I think, the opening of a new chapter in American foreign policy. Many words have been used about it, “mercantilist,” “transactional,” “not driven by sentiment or values,” “unashamedly America First,” so we need to work through all that. It – I think it’s fair to say it’s early days. We’ve had some initial announcements since the inauguration on tariffs, the Panama Canal, China, Mexico, Canada, and a few other issues, including of course, the border. Also, on green energy and other domestically related in – but also internationally relevant issues. But I’d say, if anything, actually, the opening salvos from President Trump have perhaps been less dramatic than some of us – than some people had been suggesting and some of us were expecting. So, that raises the familiar question for us of the boundary between rhetoric and intent with President Trump, and, you know, we should certainly take him seriously, but to what extent should we take him literally?
Well, I’m joined this evening with – by a very distinguished panel to discuss those things, and I’m very pleased that we are joined online by Dr Lisa Curtis, who is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Indo-Pacific Security Programme, at the Center for a new America – for New American Security. She is a distinguished Scholar and practitioner of foreign policy, and she served as Deputy Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for South and Central Asia, from 2017 to 2021, so through the first Trump Presidency.
Then, on stage, I’m very pleased that we’re joined by Mark Landler, who is the London Bureau Chief of The New York Times. He’s been in London for a long time watching British politics and our international relations. He was also, among many other distinguished roles, the White House Correspondent, covering both the Obama and Trump 1 administrations. And, finally, last but not least, of course, our very own Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, Director of our US and Americas Programme, and Professor of International Relations at SOAS, who needs no introduction and is a distinguished Commentator on these matters. So, that’s our panel.
I’m going to just remind you that this is on the record and is being livestreamed. You can use – you can send X – you can post Xs, or tweet, as we used to say, on hashtag #CH_Events, and we’ll talk for about half an hour and then I’ll open the floor up to questions, and I can take questions online, as well. So, if you’re online and you want to ask a question, please submit that throughout the event, using the Q&A box that appears at the bottom of the Zoom feed, and I will try to pick those – some of those questions up. Right, that’s enough from me. I’m going to, if I may, go first of all, to you, Lisa, because you’re the person on the spot. Tell us what’s happened, what it feels like and your initial impressions of the incoming pronouncements of the administration.
Dr Lisa Curtis
Well, thank you, Simon, and thank you to Chatham House for inviting me. It’s great to be here, especially with Mark and Leslie. And yes, I have to say there is a very palpable feeling that things are changing here in D.C. and they’re changing quickly. It’s been a dizzying 48 hours, with the slew of executive orders that have been issued, with the numerous tweets on personnel issues that have been coming through, and for many of us it’s a feeling of Groundhog Day. We remember this environment and, you know, this sense of you have to really keep watch on your X, formerly Twitter, account, to know, you know, what is happening and what is Trump’s latest thinking and latest activity.
So, we know a few things about the likely future direction of this second Trump administration and its foreign policy. The executive orders have come fast and furious on immigration, including the suspension of the US Refugee Assistance Programme. Something that was done of course in 2017, in the first Trump Administration, as well. So, you know, that is going to herald many changes to the refugee programme. There has been an executive order suspending all international assistance, so that they can conduct a 90-day review on that assistance, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, from the World Health Organization. So, I think, you know, this is what an America First policy looks like, but none of it should be surprising. If you’ve been listening to Trump over the last several months, I think, Simon, you said this, it’s not shocking, even though a lot has been announced.
But I also would say that we should look at, you know, what Secretary of State Rubio is doing. One of his first acts was to hold a Quad meeting, with the Foreign Ministers of India, Japan and Australia. This shows that The Quad will remain an important forum for engagement in the Indo-Pacific. Of course, The Quad was revived under the Trump – first Trump administration, after a ten year hiatus, and it’s really become a very effective, we’ll call it ‘mini-lateral mechanism’, and I think we can see that it will continue into the Trump administration.
But let me say just a couple of words about China, because clearly, that will be the foreign policy priority for the Trump administration. But I think we can expect a more nuanced approach to China than many people may have guessed initially. I think this will likely include strong personal engagement between President Trump and President Xi, while at the same time, the prioritisation of policies that will allow the US to effectively compete with China. I think people like National Security Advisor Waltz and Secretary of State Rubio will be pressing policies that ensure the US is competing effectively with China. Things like technology restrictions, restrictions on investments, US investments into China, developing alternative supply chains for critical minerals and technologies, sending clear signals on US willingness to defend Taiwan and allies like the Philippines, which has been coming under pressure from China in the South China Sea.
So, I think, you know, we’re going to see both happening at the same time. President Trump will want to try to come to some, kind of, trade deal with China. We can’t forget that he concluded the phase one trade deal with China in January 2020, before the COVID crisis kicked in, and of course, the US-China relationship went south after that. But, you know, the fact is, he is a negotiator, he’s going to want to negotiate, he has indicated he wants to travel to China. So, you know, it seems clear that he has this personal interest in trying to set the stage for better relations between the US and China.
And the last thing I will say is the TikTok issue shows that President Trump can change his mind. You know, unpredictability is part of his nature, it’s part of his brand, so I think we can certainly expect more of that in the months and years to come.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Thank you very much, Lisa. That – very – and we’ll come back and pick up some of those points, but your point on China and the nuance point I think is really interesting for us to explore a bit further, ‘cause a lot of the talk here is very simplistic. It’s about sanc – it’s about tariffs, and, you know, rather aggressive trade action, so we need to unpick that, but I’ll come back to you a bit later.
Mark, if I could come to you, I mean, first of all, you’ve experience of working as a Journalist in the White House, so that’d very interesting to hear your sense, and maybe how you think this administration may differ from the previous administration. And then if you could tell us a bit about your impression of European reactions so far and what the Europeans will be thinking about this.
Mark Landler
Sure. Thank you, Simon and Leslie, it’s great to be back here, and hello to Lisa. I sat on a number of conference calls being talked through the foreign policy of President Trump on Afghanistan and other issues, that Lisa was heading up in her days on the NSC. Actually, couple of points about differences between the first term and the second term, and some of these you will have no doubt read a lot and heard a lot about. But President Trump came into the last term in an almost accidental way. He didn’t really have much of a foreign policy cohort, he relied on people who he knew by reputation but had no particular loyalty to him, and I think that actually filtered into ways – the way some of the key agencies of the government conducted themselves during the first term. I’m thinking of the Pentagon under General Jim Mattis. I’m thinking about the State Department under Rex Tillerson, the former Chairman of ExxonMobil.
I think that the result in the first term was a President who had a few fixed ideological interests and a lot of opinions, that he dropped at all hours of day and night on what was then known as Twitter. And then you had the agencies themselves that were still staffed by a career bureaucracy that was, you know, really still quite empowered and ready to resist the President, at times, if they felt that he was going off the rails. And so, foreign policy during that first term, to me, sometimes had a, kind of, a bifurcated nature. If you think of Russia, for example, the State Department and the NSC ran a rather traditional Russia policy. It had – it involved sanctions, it even involved expelling Diplomats from time to time from Russia diplomatic outposts in the US, at the very moment that Trump was tweeting about his famous friendship with Vladimir Putin and appearing in public forums with Putin, where he was taking Putin’s side over his own Intelligence Officials on issues of had Russia intervened or interfered in our election.
So, during those days, I felt that foreign policy was almost a bit schizophrenic. I don’t believe any of that will happen this time around, for a couple of reasons. One, the Cabinet Secretaries in all of these jobs are people that know Trump well and have been chosen largely because of their loyalty to him, and secondly, even among the higher levels of the bureaucracy, the administration’s already moving to take out people that they do not believe are going to be 100% behind the President’s America First policy. So, I don’t think you’ll see a deep state, if you will, or a career bureaucracy that will be at odds with the President. And for that reason, I think we might actually see the agencies more co-ordinated with the President, accepting the fact, as Lisa points out, there’s an inherent unpredictability to President Trump’s own opinions.
And then, very quickly on Europe, I like to think of the way foreign leaders have dealt with Trump a little bit by thinking of the seven stages of grief, you know, anger, denial, grief.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Which stage are we at, at the moment?
Mark Landler
I think we’re in bargaining. I think that now a lot of leaders are looking at Trump and, sort of, thinking, well, if I give him this, can I get that? If I’m willing to see something there, can I – and that’s not wrong, because he is fundamentally transactional, and leaders that did comparatively well with him the first time around got that insight very quickly. So, I think that in Europe you’re seeing a lot of leaders already adopt that posture. I think that Europe has a couple of major problems. One, it’s not very well placed in terms of its own leadership right now. We have a Germany with a lame duck government, we have a President in France who’s been really, really hurt domestically by a self-inflicted wound of calling snap elections last summer. In Britain, we have a new Prime Minister who was elected with a commanding majority, but is now, kind of, in the trenches, trying to find his own footing. So, it’s not a Europe with a particularly unified or powerful set of leaders.
And then you have a President who I think will probably pursue, to some extent, a divide and conquer strategy, one that will not regard the European Union or European unity as a goal to be sought, but as something to be fought against. So, I think Europe is bargaining, maybe the best they can do right now, but I don’t think that we’re in a moment where Europe can set itself up particularly robustly against Trump.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
No, I agree with that, and there are some very big issues which we’ll come to, like, on NATO, on China policy, on defence spending, where there are obvious pressure points that will emerge, I think. So, that’s an interesting perspective and we’ll explore it further, but before that, Leslie, let me go to you. I mean, please share your thoughts on what’s been said so far, overall, but I’d also welcome, if you could, sort of, pick up a couple of the hotspot issues. So, Ukraine, where’s he going on Ukraine, and the Middle East, what next in the Middle East? If we could cover those off, I think it’d be very helpful.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah, I mean, I agree largely with what Lisa and Mark said, and I – and especially on this idea that there might be a more nuanced policy with respect to China, more nuanced than the Biden administration, which will be interesting to watch. The – but I – it’s clearly, you know, to play for. The one thing that I’m not sure I agree with, although I agree with your assessment, Simon, that it was – that it’s, sort of, less, I don’t know which word you used, outrageous or something…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I can’t remember what word I used, but…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…than we expect…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…dramatic, but…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Less dramatic.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…maybe in your face would be the right…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, less dramatic, so it was less dramatic for Europe, it was less dramatic for China, less dramatic for Iran, North Korea, you know, America’s adversaries. But if you’re Mexico, if you’re Canada, if you are LGBTQ, if you are, you know, in various minority statuses in the United States, if you’re, sort of, on the – you know, committed to the, I hate to use the word ‘cause it’s such a, you know – but woke agenda, the – so the – and I know that’s not what you’re referring to, but there are a lot of people right now that feel phenomenally insecure.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
The, sort of, liberal social agenda, you could say.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Exactly, but also, you know, if you’re – as I hear – we all probably heard on, I don’t know which radio station, a woman who just had a C section and was – thought she had an appointment to – an asylum seeker to legally cross the border and have that meeting, which she had applied through the CBP One app, which was a very strong success of the Biden administration for controlling the border. ‘Cause there has been a very serious problem and the numbers have come down from what was a real crisis, and there have been many mechanisms put in place to deal with what has been a very serious crisis and, you know, some of those – one of those…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…things was just reversed. So, for some people, this is a very dark and very dangerous period. But I think on the things that we have been more focused on here, tariffs and questions of war and peace, there was, sort of, less in it…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…and so he’s clearly waiting to play. So, let me say a couple of things very quickly on Ukraine and on the Middle East and never – one should never say things quickly, so it’s just an opening comment. I – you know, we all like to say every President has, sort of, America, you know, first in mind, but actually for at least three or four decades, America thought that putting America’s interests first meant putting other people’s interests first, because in the medium and long-term, America would benefit from that.
So, on Ukraine, we’ve seen lots of problems with Biden’s policy, and we’ve aired those critiques here, at the Russia and Eurasia Programme. But one thing the Biden administration, sort of, always said was, you know, “It’s got to be – what Ukraine wants has to come first,” and I don’t think that’s going to be Trump’s position. So, first thing is, as the Trump administration moves towards some sort of negotiation, I think they’re going to be thinking about, what is America’s interest in solving this war? Not as – what is Ukraine’s interest? And that’s actually a very significant break.
And we’ve heard the different proposals for how, you know, the President might get the two parties to the negotiating table. We haven’t really heard a good answer on the question of security insurances and the broader question of, you know, will Ukraine be sovereign to lean West? So, I think there’s a whole lot to play for there, and let’s wait and see whether part of that nuanced relationship with China is about having some sort of linkage politics that brings China to the table on the question of putting pressure on Russia. So, we know that they want to do it in 100 days now, not one day, and we really don’t know how – what the sequencing is going to look like or how that’s going to turn out.
One, I guess, just one word, so…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Have they rolled it back to six months now, is it, they’ve gone from…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Well…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…100 days to the…?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…100 days, six mon…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Whatever…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, you know…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…it’s going to happen.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s – well, it might not happen actually.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
It’s intended to happen.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It actually might happen, but the – because it’s not clear to see how it does happen…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…in a way that’s – that the US is going to support. On…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
What about the Middle East?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, in the Middle East, how do we get to phase two? And I think that, you know, this is – the negotiation for phase two begins on day 16, which is, what, two weeks from today? And this is now Donald Trump’s problem, and – along with obviously, the other partners in those negotiations, and it’s very hard to see the way through that. We know that, you know, if there was a way through this, then there’s a broader set of things that Trump would like to do, Saudi and Israel normalisation, a deal with Iran, but there’s no – there – I have not heard articulated any solution or even proposal for the question of Palestine, Palestinian sovereignty, let alone Gaza. So, I think we’re a little bit stuck.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Many questions and many interrelated issues in the Middle East. I’m sure we’ll come back to the Middle East, and there are questions on Iran and other things, so we will. But before we do that, let me go back to you, Lisa, if I may, because I mean, you’re an expert – I mean, we tend to be rather Eurocentric, because here we are in London, but you’re an expert on South Asian affairs, and you’ve talked a bit about China. But looking elsewhere in the region, there are many other important, sort of, focuses of American policy, and we have to keep on reminding ourselves, you know, America is not facing Europe as much as it’s facing Asia and other parts of the world these days. So, what about India? What about Japan? I mean, how do those countries read Trump’s arrival, and what do you read of American policy towards them?
Dr Lisa Curtis
Well, thank you. Yeah, when it comes to India, there is definitely a history of a relationship between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi. They, you know, had several meetings together in Trump 1, you had the Howdy Modi event in the United States, with, you know, 50,000 Indian Americans at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. Two months later you had President Trump addressing 100,000 Indians in Ahmedabad, in Gujarat, India. And I think they both respect each other as leaders and they have a lot of comm – a lot in common, in terms of how they view themselves and their leadership. So, that has, kind of, created a bond, I think, between the two of them.
And, you know, I – so I think you will see the US-India relationship move forward. Trump’s also said he wants to travel to India. Frankly, it would be unprecedented for a US President in the first – his first year of a four-year term to visit India. That just hasn’t happened in the past. So, I think we can expect to see that relationship move forward and it will, you know, will continue to be viewed – India will continue to be viewed, as the Biden administration viewed India, as extremely important when it comes to dealing with China, competing with China, countering China. So, I would fully expect that relationship to move forward.
AUKUS, the Australia-UK-US agreement, you know, pillar one, to provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines, pillar two, which talks about the three countries working closely to advance capabilities, I think that will likely stay on track. We have seen Pre – Secretary of State Rubio, as well as National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, support this agreement when they were on Capitol Hill, so I see that moving forward, as well.
When it comes to NATO, I think that, you know, US leadership of NATO has really helped create the peace in Europe. So, when Trump says he wants to be remembered for keeping peace in the world, I think, you know, he has to be thinking about his legacy, right? He can’t run for another term. So, I think if he were to withdraw US leadership from NATO, that would really go against his goal of wanting to be seen as a peacemaker and, you know, relinquishing that US leadership role of NATO would simply diminish American influence and power, it goes without saying. So, why would Trump want to be remembered for diminishing American influence and power?
You know, I think his tough talk on tariffs, you know, shows that he, you know, he wants to get a good deal for Americans. You know, this is part of his negotiating tactic. Even with India, you know, in his first term, before any meeting with Modi, he would always tweet out something about India’s high tariffs. So, I think, you know, we need to see that for what it is, it’s a negotiating…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Lisa Curtis
…tactic. But at the same time, one can’t deny that if you want a stable Indo-Pacific, if you want peace in the Indo-Pacific, you also need to have a stable Europe, you need to have peace in Europe, and you need to have countries that can protect their own sovereignty.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Lisa Curtis
Of course, here I’m referring to Ukraine. So, I think that even though, again, the, sort of, black and white view was, you know, maybe Trump would come in and stop support to Ukraine, you know, get friendly with Russia, again, I think it’s going to be more nuanced, because, you know, he also doesn’t want to do something that is going to show the US is weak or stepping back. I think, you know, when it comes down to it, he would like to see the US continue to have influence throughout the world, and that includes Europe.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah, well, thank you. I mean, your comments, as somebody who’s worked in a Trump administration, are very interesting for us, because you’re bringing balance to the debate. And – but I would say, it’s one thing not to withdraw from NATO, but it’s a different thing to maintain a credible American commitment to Article 5 in its full extent. And I think that’s one of the things that Europeans will look at, you know, and have some questions about the extent of America’s commitment there, which plays into the question of how he’s going to address Russia and Ukraine, but I’m sure we can pick that up a bit later on.
I – what I want to do just now – actually, I’d like to go back to you, Leslie, if I can, and I’d like to try and draw this together a bit before we go to the audience. And picking up, actually, already now one of the questions that I’ve got on the screen, which is from Dr David Gelas, which says, “How could we define a Trump doctrine in foreign policy?” So, I mean, maybe it’s not a Trump doctrine, but I mean, if we just look at what’s happened – what’s been said before and what’s actually happened so far, recognising this is early days, I mean, what does it tell us about the overall intent? There was a lot of discussion about “a strategy of spheres of influence,” sort of, hemispheric spheres of influence, a great power geopolitics based around the US, China, possibly Russia, which, of course, is worrying for Europeans. I mean, what’s your take on that?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah, so it’s like the children’s game where there’s a lot of dots and you have to fill them in and connect them, I think that’s what we’re all trying to do. And I say that as a serious point, because we tried to create a doctrine where there are a lot of beliefs, views, policies, instincts, but not necessarily a coherent doctrine, but I think those of us who think a lot about foreign policy could certainly create one. But I – but there is this – but there is a genuinely interesting debate, as you and the individual who’s written in the question allude to, and one of them is, you know, is this a – you know, are these tactics aiming at establishing, if not an American – a US sphere of influence, you know, from the South to the North in the United State – Panama on up, including Greenland? Or is there also, extending beyond that, some, sort of, you know, notion of spheres of influence more generally and that Trump would be willing to do a deal that, you know, says, “Okay, China, you have Taiwan, and we’ll have this”?
And I guess my view is that there isn’t a coherent doctrine on this, but that there is an attempt by Donald Trump to – he sees what he wants, somebody’s plan – you know, the seed on Greenland’s been planted for a little while. He can see the advantage, and, you know, there would be an advantage of having Greenland, at least being much – even more engaged than the US already is, as the Arctic becomes more important, as the sea-lanes become bigger, as America thinks more about, you know, maritime geopolitical competition. There are lots of reasons to have what Donald Trump wants to have. So, what I think he’s trying to do is to get us to think differently, in order to eventually make it possible to change the status quo. He’s trying it on.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Hmmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And that’s not necessarily a doctrine, but it is a way of changing international relations.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
It’s a different approach.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And I suspect that he’ll be successful, not immediately, but I think that he will – and this is – I guess this is my deepest fear and concern across multiple domains, and I think there are many things that Trump is planning to do that could be good, that could change things that haven’t been great, but I think that four years of somebody who’s willing to take some very good norms and disrupt them, in a large audience, in an information environment that’s already extremely problematic, I think by the time we’ve gone through four years of this, we will think very differently about these questions.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, it’s certainly a different way – I mean, it’s certainly a power-based approach, it’s not a rules-based or a norms-based approach, or a precedent-based approach. And I mean, it’s quite interesting if you look at actually what he’s said, I mean, he has in effect, called for the overthrow of the British Government. He hasn’t called for the overthrow of the government in Russia or China or – so there are some pretty unconventional approaches coming.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
They’re stronger.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, exactly, so…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But this is…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
You know, they’re stronger.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…so, if you’re European you do need to think about those things.
Mark Landler
Can I just…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah, and one…
Mark Landler
…jump in on one thing?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…what I want to ask – yeah…
Mark Landler
Yeah.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…come in on that, and then I want to ask you about Russia, as well.
Mark Landler
I think the other thing that’s worth remembering about Donald Trump is that foreign policy to Trump is really an extension of economic policy.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Mark Landler
And I really think Trump thinks of relations with countries almost exclusively through the prism of, are we getting ripped off or not? And what’s interesting about it is, after four years of that in Trump 1, when you look at the Biden foreign policy – and tariffs are a very good illustration of this, Biden left in place many of the tariffs on China. And one of the most influential essays that his own National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, wrote, in the very early days of the administration, is how Democrats needed to think of foreign policy through the lens of, you know, “economic interests of the middleclass in America.” And that is a legacy of Trump and the Trump administration in the first term.
So, to Leslie’s point about, will he force us again to rethink it? Probably, and maybe in ways we can’t predict sitting here today. But that notion of foreign policy is an extension of domestic economic policy is clearly going to drive him, as it did in the first term, and probably the Democratic President who comes after him, should there be a Democratic President after him, at some point.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And it explains a lot about why North America was so central…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yes.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…to this…
Mark Landler
Right.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…to that inauguration speech.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I think in relation to that…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…I mean, it comes from home and…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…all this on – can I just ask you? Before we go to the other questions, I want to pick up one question online for – ‘cause you said you wanted to, sort of, refer to Trump’s tweet on – to Putin on Russia, and there’s a question about that that’s come in, so – from Gareth Quinn. “What did Trump’s recent posts on Truth Social asking Putin to end the war and face – or face further sanctions mean about how he’s planning?” So, can we just cover that off, ‘cause he has tweeted on this today…
Mark Landler
Yeah.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…and it’s quite interesting.
Mark Landler
It’s – I mean, it’s – if you can indulge me, it’s actually worth reading. This is…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
How many characters?
Mark Landler
Well, it’s long. I’ll read it quickly.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah, read it quickly.
Mark Landler
“realDonaldTrump. I’m not looking to hurt Russia. I love the Russian people and always had a very good relationship with President Putin, and this despite the radical left’s Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. We must never forget that Russia helped us win the Second World War, losing almost 60 million lives in the process. All of that being said, I’m going to do Russia, whose economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big favour, settle now and stop this ridiculous war, IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE,” that part’s in all caps. “If we don’t make a deal and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of taxes, tariffs and sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which would never have started if I were President, over with. We can do it the easy way or the hard way, and the easy way is always better. It’s time to make a deal. No more lives should be lost.”
And I mean, this tweet is already generated – is going to generate about, you know, 100 analytical stories between now and tomorrow morning, because it, kind of, encapsulates so much about the way Trump thinks. One, it’s very much a personal appeal to his friend, Putin. You know, he drags in the “radical left” and the “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.” And then he uses, you know, tariffs in exactly the way Lisa suggested earlier. Tariffs he uses as a negotiating – I mean, this is not about our economic relationship or balance of payments with Russia. As some Smart Alec on X observed this afternoon, “You can expect to spend a lot more on the next Fabergé egg you buy.” I mean, it’s not as though imposing tariffs on Russia changes the equation for the American consumer the way it would, say, on Canada, or even Britain.
But it is interesting that he, sort of, thinks that he can force Putin to move on a deeply felt geopolitical issue by threatening him with tariffs. And as several people have pointed out, the third piece, “taxes, tariffs and sanctions,” well, we’ve had incredibly heavy sanctions on Russia for the past two years, and it hasn’t really forced Putin’s hand. So, the immediate instinct of critics of Donald Trump is to say, “He’s not going to get anywhere with this,” but I just thought it was worth surfacing, because it gets across so much of what we’re going to see…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Mark Landler
…over the next four years.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Lisa, do you want very quickly to come in on – ‘cause that’s not very – that tweet is not all that nuanced. So, how do you read that one? Quickly, ‘cause I do want to go to the audience, but I think be good to hear from you.
Dr Lisa Curtis
Well, I think what he’s saying is, you know, Putin, you have an opportunity, if you want to get out of this war that is, you know, sapping your economy and your military power, you know, I think, you know, it’s what he’s saying. He wants to see the war ended, he’s willing to play a role in that process, but if Putin, you know, insists on continuing on with his current policies, then the sanctions will continue. So, I think it’s pretty straightforward, and I think it probably is more pressure than people would have expected. Again, I think, you know, people, you know, days, weeks ago, would have been fearful that, you know, Trump was going to immediately, you know, withdraw support from Ukraine, lift the sanctions and, you know, just let Russia do what Russia wanted to do.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Lisa Curtis
And that’s not what this tweet is saying, it’s…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
No, no, I agree with you.
Dr Lisa Curtis
To me.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
It’s, sort of, more – it’s less pro-Putin than some people might have expected, I – it’s a very interesting point. I’m going to ask for questions in the room now and I’ll pick others up online. Are you okay? Mark’s, kind of…
Mark Landler
I apologise for my coughing, yeah.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…suffering from a bit of a cough, but he’s doing very well, valiantly.
Mark Landler
I’m trying my best.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
When you ask a question, could you raise your hand, could you please say who you are, your affiliation. Please ask a question rather than making a lengthy statement. If you want to address it to a particular panellist, that is fine. There are many issues we haven’t covered, like, defence spending and oligarchs. I’m sure these things will come up, but I’ll try to take a range of – I’ll take – if I don’t mind, I’ll take two at a time, I prefer to do it that way. So, a gentleman here on the front row, with your hand up. A mic is coming, so if you just hold on.
Kayode Adeniyi
Thank you. My name is Kayode Adeniyi, and I’m a Master’s student at the London School of Economics and Political Science. I’m studying digital innovation. I just want to ask that – what role do you think technology will play in shaping the foreign policy? Recently removed the Biden policy around, you know, safety AI, and, of course, the largest fund was raised yesterday, 500 billion. And like you just say – you just read to us, a lot of things are going on with the internet and technology, so what role do you think technology will play in shaping United States foreign policy? Thank you.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay, that’s a very good question. It takes us towards the oligarchs. A gentleman over here on the front row, and then we’ll divide them up as we can. Don’t worry, I’ll come to the back la…
Robert Walter
Thank you very much. Robert Walter, Chatham House member, and former Member of Parliament. I wanted to focus on the Middle East, if I might. One of the very first executive orders that Trump signed on Monday night was lifting the sanctions on the violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank. In his various speeches on Monday, he played on the October the 7th issue and the hostages, but there was no mention of the nearly 50,000 dead in Gaza. And today it’s reported in a congressional hearing his nominee for the United Nations Ambassador has said that “Israel has a biblical right to occupy the West Bank.” Do you think peace in the Middle East is closer or further away?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay, that – well, Leslie has touched on that, and maybe we can come back and just develop that a bit further, ‘cause it is an important issue. But let’s do the technology question first, because I think this is a very important part of, you know, who are the people who are sitting behind Donald Trump or standing behind him at the inauguration? Leaders of, you know, major technology firms and tech companies, and they’re obviously very important, and also, it changes obviously the way he’s campaigned, including the TikTok issue. So, who wants to pick the – who wants to be – pick…?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’ll say a word.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’m sure everybody has got something…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Very quickly, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…to say here.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, I would say it’s as much about who has power and influence, clearly, there’s going to be a much – well, a very strong relationship between the leaders of the major tech companies and the US President. I think there’s going – I think this, you know, makes it clear that the focus is not going to be on regulation, but it’s going to be very much on deregulation and innovation, which it already was, but I think this is very clarifying.
There will be – I mean, you know, after the announcement was made about the 500 billion that’s going into the infrastructure project – I forgot – SoftBank, there’s already, you know, falling out. Elon Musk is, sort of, you know, frustrated about that, there’s competition that’s going on. I think the – one of the big things for Europe will just simply be that I suspect – and we’ve, you know, we’ve already heard intimations of this, that there will be pressure to deregulate, and not to touch America’s tech firms, and not to go down the, you know, content moderation or any of that, without facing some pretty sharp penalties. I think that’s where we’re likely to see…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
And that will be…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…tariffs in other…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…a pressure point with the Europeans, certainly.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Absolutely.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
And of course…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And it raises a question for the UK, which way…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…does the UK want to play? An opportunity that comes with a price…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…a social price.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
And of course, the other – one of the other things on technology is that the competition to con – to achieve dominance in new technologies, particularly green technologies, is a big part of the US-China geopolitical standoff, as well. Did you want to pick up on this…
Mark Landler
Just to…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…Mark? Yeah.
Mark Landler
…make a very small additional point to what Leslie was saying. I think the other thing to remember about almost all of these powerful technology people, all of whom were lined up behind Trump at the inauguration, is they have huge economic interests in China, and so, to the extent that the administration wants to pursue, you know, some confrontational elements with China, you might have the likes of Elon Musk, or even Tim Cook of Apple, you know, sounding a more moderate, cautionary tone. Elon Musk has not minded coming out and calling for the end of Keir Starmer or the, you know, the election of the AfD Party in Germany. He’s not tweeted a single word about China during this period.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
But one third of Tesla’s are produced in Shanghai, aren’t they?
Mark Landler
Absolutely.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
So, that’s always a useful statistic…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
We did…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…to bear in mind.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…at our earlier conference in Europe, the Chatham House conference in Berlin, we asked this question to…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…I think one of your colleagues, Lisa, and he – how are the – how will they deal with, you know, Musk, how will Trump deal with…?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And the answer was carve outs, you know, tariffs, but carve outs for his friends, who are very powerful.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I’ll come back to Lisa on the technology relationship with China, but can we just cover the Middle East question, because that’s an important one? You did touch on this…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I mean, I…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…and…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
You know, everybody here, I mean, there’s clearly – the question, I guess, and I don’t say this with judgment, but I think the question is, do you think that Donald Trump can move forward a broader peace deal, both on the – in the current phased deal, but more generally in the Middle East, without addressing the Palestinian problem? And if your answer is no, then I don’t think that there’s very much hope for a serious broader, regional piece. If your answer is that actually what we might see is some sort of solution temporarily for stabilising Gaza, and then basically, the Palestinian question being ignored and the can being kicked down the road for four years, and then whoever comes next, things exploding again. So, you know, unfortunately – and the comments from Elise Stefanik, the US UN Ambassador, were exact – indicative of that que – that lack of attention to the question of…
Mark Landler
If…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…the Palestinians.
Mark Landler
…you recall, before the Trump administration did the Abraham Accords, Jared Kushner actually put together a package to deal with Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians had no role, at all, in the formulation of it, they didn’t come out of it with much of a prospect, and it was dead on arrival. Now, to be fair, a lot of previous peace plans have been dead on arrival, too. So, I think the precedent’s been set and now, if anything, the key players, including the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, this language about Israel having a “biblical claim to the occupied terr” – you’re just going to hear that over and over again. It’s going to become an article of faith, and so, I think for the Palestinians, it’s a pretty bleak four years.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, the last year hasn’t been great for them either.
Mark Landler
No.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay, well, that’s – I think I share your view on that, but others may want to come back on the Middle East. But can I – I’d like to go to Lisa, and I’d quite like to pick up, Lisa, on this question about technology in the US-China relationship and the relationship with Asia. But can I just add in a question from – on – that I’ve had on the screen, relating to your nuance point, which is – it says – and it’s from Alejandro Desoutter, and it says, “How much nuance can the markets allow before uncertainty becomes the norm?” And we haven’t really talked about the markets issue, and the econo – the macroeconomic impact of Trump’s policy, so maybe it’s worth just touching on those, as well.
Dr Lisa Curtis
Yeah, I think the points that Mark and Leslie made on technology are both very apt, and I would say – I would take it one step further and say, you know, there’s been this concern that there’s going to be a bifurcation of the technology world, when it comes to technology. That somehow there’ll be, sort of, a China technological, you know, world or system, and then a US. But I think because of the influence of the technology firms on the Trump administration, their close involvement, you know, when it comes to policy, that that makes that less likely, that you’re – it’s going to be a much more messy situation. Yes, I think, you know, there’s going to be more export controls on technology going to China. That’s not going to end, but at the same time, you know, people like Elon Musk are going to have influence and, of course, you know, they’re more interested in having an economic relationship with China and in continuing those connections. So, I think, you know, we’re look – it’s less likely that we’re going to see this, sort of, bifurcated world when it comes to technology.
And then your second question I think was on the unpredictability and how that’s going to impact the markets. Well, clearly, I don’t think we know. I think that, you know, Trump is seen as business friendly. You know, he’s a former Businessman, he seems to understand that world, so that, you know, helps the markets, I think. But when it comes to the larger issues of foreign policy, US-China broader relations, Taiwan, we haven’t really talked about Taiwan yet, that I think there is some merit to that idea of unpredictability.
But, you know, on that note, look, the last couple of years have been extremely unpredictable. So, you know, this is a problem that transcends Trump, or even Biden. I mean, this is an issue that our world is becoming more unpredictable, and I think, you know, Trump wants to calm down some of these conflicts. So, again, I don’t think this is easy to predict or say how the markets will be impacted, because, you know, there are many different issues at play and, you know, it – I think it’s too early to say, and a lot of it is outside the control of Trump and his actions. I think that’s just a reality of the world that we’re in right now.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah, okay, I mean, I think – I guess the impact of the issues around inflation and debt are certainly potentially important market relevant things going forward, but they’re more domestic policy issues in the first instance. I’m going to take – let me take two more questions in the room, if I may. I’m going to go to the back, there’s a gentleman on the end of the row there, oh, and there’s a lady, Mary, as well over there, so – but first of all, there.
Marcus Gardiner-Hill
Hello, my name is Marcus Gardiner-Hill, I’m a Consultant at TrustIn, doing headhunting. I was interested to hear your opinion on obviously TrumpCoin has come out and him putting his own financial situation first is interesting. How do you think he’s going to govern in the next four years, and do you think it’s going to be the positive of the American people, or do you think it’ll be – mainly be to serve his own ego?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
So, yeah, okay, understood, a very personalised, sort of, personal – okay, and over here, Mary. Over here [pause].
Mary Dejevsky
Thank you very much. I’m Mary Dejevsky, Journalist, I write a column for The Independent. Simon, you referred in passing to ‘spheres of influence’.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Mary Dejevsky
Practically every foreign affairs gathering I’ve been at, say, over the last ten years, spheres of influence have been derided as outdated, morally wrong, and something that needs to be consigned to the past. Are they being rehabilitated, and is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I have my own views, but I’m only the Chairman. Let’s just – can we pick up on the government style question? I mean, it’s quite interesting, to what extent is this going to be a highly personalised, sort of, court of Donald Trump, and to what extent is he going to admini – govern through an administration? You talked about the administration being better prepared, and there are different strands of thinking in the administration. It’s a very interesting question, how personalised it’s going to be.
Mark Landler
Well, I think also the…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Partly just because we here tend to focus always on the President, and don’t think always about the broader system of governments in the US, which is very important.
Mark Landler
I mean, and I think if I’m not wrong, that the question was always asking to what extent his personal…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
His own…
Mark Landler
…interests enter the equation.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Mark Landler
I guess I’d say a couple of things. I think his personal interests obviously enter the equation, and I think the difference is that he has moved the goalposts a long way from 2016, in terms of what I think people will be willing to overlook or tolerate. You know, if you remember, his first foreign trip was to Riyadh, was to Saudi Arabia, you know, a country with which his son-in-law now has an extremely lucrative financial and investment arrangement. You know, so I think that will be a recurring theme, and I think the difference is the first time around it was viewed as outrageous and a cause for resistance and commentary, and now I think some of that has been, sort of, just discounted, and it’s assumed that that’s the way he’s going to approach things.
In terms of the personalisation, yeah, I mean, that tweet demonstrates that he still views his own personal relationship with foreign leaders, particularly in non-democratic countries, as, kind of, key to getting things done, settling conflicts, etc. And I – and, as I said at the beginning, the only difference is there were these vast bureaucracies and agencies the first time around that were not necessarily completely aligned behind him. This time around, they are more aligned behind him and his view and his ideology. So, the interesting thing to watch will be, you know, will Marco Rubio be reading off precisely the script that’s in this tweet? I assume he probably will. That would not have been the case, necessarily, eight years ago. And so, you know, that means that Trump in a sense, is even more empowered, to change the terms of the debate based on very personal impulses and instincts.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
And on the spheres of influence question, I mean, Leslie talked a bit about this, Lisa, can I come back to you on that? I mean, to what extent do you buy into this notion that, actually, we are going back to a power-based, great power, spheres of influence foreign policy approach?
Dr Lisa Curtis
Yeah, I don’t think I really see us entering this spheres of influence type of policy. I think, you know, this is something that there’s been a lot of concern about in the past. I know in India’s case, it’s always worried that the US was going to go into what they call the ‘G2’ or ‘Global 2’ relationship with China, where the US is – you know, leaves the Indo-Pacific region, you know, for China and accepts that China’s, you know, always going to have a lot of influence there, and the US worries about its own side of the world, but I just don’t see that happening. I mean, what we hear is that the Indo-Pacific region will remain a priority. In fact, you know, we may see the US enhance its posture, its military posture, in the region. I think we’re likely to see that. You’ve got people coming into the Defense Department who, you know, have talked about the importance of that and in deterring China from trying to militarily, you know, take Taiwan.
So, I – you know, I really don’t see that idea of spheres of influence happening and, you know, I guess you could say, you know, if, you know, President Trump was to back away from NATO, or, you know, allow Russia to do what it wants vis-à-vis Ukraine, you know, you could make that argument, but again, I don’t think that’s where things are headed. I think, you know, because President Trump seems to, you know, understand more US power, he seems to be, you know, fairly confident in, you know, the things that he’s been asserting and trying to do, because of that, I think that shows that he’s not seeing the world in terms of, you know, China, you know, China has the most power here, Russia here, you know, or whatever great powers…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
But people have interpreted his comments on the Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada very much in that sense. It’s about territorial acquisition, physical acquisition of territory for power.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But Simon, it’s one thing to want your own sphere of influence, it’s quite another to give up another one. And it’s not only about giving up, you know, Japan, South Korea, Australia, you know, the list is very long, it’s also a very wealthy, growing dynamic region. So, the idea that you would, sort of, cede it to somebody else and, I mean, we all…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Let’s apply that to Taiwan policy, ‘cause, Lisa, you did say we haven’t touched on that and we should do. I mean, how committed is Donald Trump to maintaining the current American posture on Taiwan?
Dr Lisa Curtis
I think he is. I don’t think he’s going to bargain away Taiwan. Last year, when he made the comment about Taiwan not being fair when it comes to advanced semiconductor technology, I think that’s more – that’s his businessman side coming out. That’s him saying, you know, “We want more – Taiwan to have its semiconductor factories in the United States.” You know, he’s trying to get some, kind of, good deal for the American people and on the issue of semiconductors. I don’t think that translates to, and if, you know, Taiwan is threatened by a Chinese military invasion, the US won’t stand behind Taiwan, he’s not saying that. So, again, I don’t see the policy on Taiwan changing in any drastic way.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Interesting.
Dr Lisa Curtis
You know, he may not talk about defending Taiwan in deference to the policy of ambiguity, unlike Biden, who, you know, I think it was four or five times he said that the US would come to Taiwan’s defence.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Lisa Curtis
But I think that he’s also – doesn’t want to be the US President, you know, that lost Taiwan.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay.
Dr Lisa Curtis
Again, I think we have to remember that he believes in US power and influence, and he, you know, he looked at the withdrawal from Afghanistan and saw what a disaster that was, and how weak that made the US look around the world. So he’s going to be very careful to not…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Okay.
Dr Lisa Curtis
…repeat any, kind of, similar mistakes.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
That was, of course, originally his plan, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, I believe, executed by Biden because he…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yeah, good to leave it to somebody else to…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Can I – I’m going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair, and I’m picking up on two questions that I’ve got online here. I want to just bring this back to the UK for a minute, and Mark, for you. We’ve talked about this – the divisions in Europe. We haven’t talked about defence spending, but that’s obviously a major pressure point on European governments. We’ve talked about spheres of influence, and we have a Prime Minister who’s telling us that the UK does not need to make a choice between Europe and the United States, and of course, those are the two big pillar relationships of our foreign policy. How worried do you think the British Government should actually be?
Mark Landler
Quite, I mean, in a word, because again, Trump will view this in a personal way. So I, sort of, think the trick for Keir Starmer is to say all the right things to Trump about the transatlantic relationship, and then quietly continue to do what he should be doing, which is find ways to get rid of pointless hurdles to trade between the UK and Europe, and then try to do that in a way that doesn’t antagonise Trump. But – because if he does, if he appears on the Champs-Élysées and announces a new era of entente between the UK and France and the UK and the EU, that’ll go over very badly and it’ll be played on by people like Nigel Farage, who will travel to the US and tell him and the people around him, you know, that Starmer is choosing the other side. And I think that’s the way that the UK gets itself into trouble.
But I do think that with a little bit of nuance and a little bit of agility, there is a way that they can try to do both. And I’ll make one rather trivial point, but I don’t think it’s actually that trivial. The UK needs to play on the – on its strengths with Trump, and one of the strengths it has is his absolute reverence for the Royal Family. And so, he needs – the UK needs to send King Charles and Prince William to Washington far more than David Lammy or Keir Starmer, and I think that’s probably the best way the UK can through this period.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s a serious point, though.
Mark Landler
It is a serious point.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Everybody laughs, but it’s a really serious point.
Mark Landler
It’s – yeah.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, it – yes, I’m not sure that the – anyway, the Roy – the deployment of the Royal Family has certain protocol around it, but…
Mark Landler
Understood.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…you know, I’m going to…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
But it’s the nature of Trump, protocol…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I’m going to take two very quick questions in the room, and then I’m going to – we’re going to have to end this event. So, the gentleman in the corner there and the lady here in the front. Could you make them fairly sharp, because we are running out of time?
Thomas
Okay. Hi, my name’s Thomas, I’m a high school student on an international tour from New Zealand. Under the assumption Trump continues to take radical and often controversial stances that the EU doesn’t align with, do you think the EU will reach a point where they will cease ‘bargaining’, as you put it, and will instead begin to act in a relatively hostile manner towards the Trump administration?
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
So, will Europe adopt a hard power policy towards the US? Very interesting question. Lady in the front here, in the red top, yeah, thanks.
Terri Paddock
Hi, my name is Terri Paddock, I’m a Chatham House member. I have to say, I actually find so much of what has been talked about really disturbing in the way that we’re normalising, kind of, outright corruption and brazen conflicts of interest. But the one thing I will also say, just from today, in addition to withdrawing from the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, he has taken the US out of the global corporate minimum tax rate…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I saw that, yeah, the OECD, yeah.
Terri Paddock
…which obviously has implications for all economies, 136 nations. He’s threatening to take, you know – threatening the UK and other governments if they adhere to this international agreement.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I saw that, yeah.
Terri Paddock
And it’s such – seems to me just a giant FU to governments around the world.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Thank you, so I – than – let’s fold those points. I’m going to ask each of our panellists very briefly to say a final word, if you could think about, you know, is Europe going to, sort of, give up on it and go antagonistic? And then this point about normalisation of the abnormal. I mean, I have to say, I didn’t expect ‘nuance’ to be the primary word in a discussion about the foreign policy of the Trump 2 administration, so it’s a good corrective that you give it. I’m going to go – I’ll go Leslie, Mark and Lisa, very quickly, if you would, just final comment.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I’m going to take this one, ‘cause it’s so incredibly important, okay. 77 million of our fellow citizens voted for Donald Trump, so we’re required, if we’re committed to the democratic process, and you are, and I am, we are required to take it seriously. Which doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be recognised for what it is, which is a radical disruption of some very fundamental norms, to our values, to our rights, to our principles, to our way of doing work, to our commitment to our allies and partners, you’re absolutely right. But, you know, the big question that we asked during the first four years, and we have to continue to ask and depending on, you know, what your day job and night job and your citizenship is, invest in, is does the system work?
Did the system ultimately work to bring Donald Trump in his first term back into a realm in which we thought that, obviously with some exceptions, politics continued to function in a way that was palatable and acceptable in a liberal democracy under the Constitution of the United States of America? And the sharp end test of that was on January 6th 2021, and our elected members of Congress returned and they verified the vote on that same day. So, when the push – when the system has been pushed to the brink, it has worked.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
I’m going to have to rush you, Leslie.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Right? I’m going to just say the – and the number one test so far, the most fundamental executive order, in my view, was the challenge to birthright citizenship, and we have 22 court cases. So, we’re not norm – we’re talking normally because Simon Fraser is the Chairman of Chatham House and I am just a Programme Director, but it doesn’t feel that we feel normal, and it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a all of society, all of alliance, all of partnership, focus. People are just more foc – don’t consider – don’t conflate normalisation and focus, ‘cause they’re not the same thing.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Mark, over to you.
Mark Landler
I just – very quickly on Europe. I don’t think, for reasons of either temperament or history or the way Europe is organised, that I see Europe taking a tough approach. I think the EU is not, as a institution, kind of, set up to do that, and I also think there will be a new leader in Germany who will probably try to get off on the right foot with Trump. Macron had a difficult time with Trump the first time, but he actually never gave up on trying to establish a rapport with him. And I think Starmer recognises that he has a lot of other things on his plate, and, sort of, deciding to define his premiership around taking – picking a fight with Donald Trump strikes me as some – maybe the last thing he’d want to do.
So, I actually think some countries might get tough. I think the Canadians might surprise us and get quite tough on trade, and maybe the Mexicans, also, they’ve used some strong language. I don’t – and I could be proven wrong and I have to come back and eat crow about this a year from now, I don’t think Europe is going to be the place where we see the real get tough to Trump attitude.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
No, I mean, Europe does not talk loudly and carry a big stick. It talks quietly and carries a large carrot. That is – Lisa…
Mark Landler
[Inaudible – 64:46].
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
…your – final words from you.
Dr Lisa Curtis
Yeah, just to address the speaker. I think that, yeah, no-one is normalising or thinks it’s acceptable for a leader to use political power which has come to them through the people, that they should misuse that for personal financial gain. It’s – that is not something that should ever be normalised, and I’m sorry if our remarks made it appear that way.
And I guess I would just end by saying, yes, we’re – that we’re in an unpredictable moment, it’s – it might be scary to some people ‘cause things are changing, changing quickly. But, you know, at the same time, we, you know, we need to not make assumptions and need to, you know, look back at the first Trump administration and, you know, remember that Trump, you know, does see himself as a peacemaker, you know, resolving conflict, bringing peace to the world, which, you know, is a call – tall order, and I’m sure, you know, we’re all very sceptical. But, you know, his instincts, I think, you know, can be positive and that we should try to build on, you know, some of those positive instincts that we see and, you know, move forward from there.
And, you know, the US and Europe do share values, they share a long history of co-operation, collaboration. I for one hope that we don’t see, you know, a breakdown in the relationships. It’s far too important, you know, our nations need one another and we need to, you know, continue to work through what, you know, many, oftentimes, is rhetoric and, you know, can seem offensive or rude, understand that. But I think we need to keep the bigger picture at the forefront of our minds and try to build on, you know, the positive things that we can find and not, you know, be totally negative about…
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Yeah.
Dr Lisa Curtis
…where things are going from here.
Sir Simon Fraser GCMG
Well, thank you for that mess – I mean, that is a sensible message, and I think Chatham House will certainly try to do that. We have to be realistic though, and un – you know, and be realistic in our assessment of the situation, but we should not be unduly negative, and we have to deal with the world as it is, and engage with the new American administration in that spirit, I think. Thank you very much, everybody, for joining us. Thank you very much to our panellists, and thanks to everybody who joined us online. I’m sorry I overran [applause]. I’m sorry we overran, but there was so much to cover, and we will come back to it. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot.
