If Trump sticks to his plan to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement, that affects the world’s political system. The U.S. is a superpower
through agreements, alliances, commitments, arrangements, programs, treaties
and other such institutions that connect it to other states that it designates
as friends, allies and partners. However, the U.S. government tends to play the
role of the superpower in an all or none way. It views a foreign state as
either a friend or an enemy. It is either with the U.S. or against it. This way
of thinking and operating comes about because our government is dominated by
its most influential departments, like Defense and State, and because sometimes
a certain interest, like oil, is predominant. Thus, the U.S. bonds strongly
with certain states and countries while being against others.
Reality is
more complex, however, in that serving American interests sometimes demands
cooperation with a foreign state on Matter X while demanding being against that
same state on Matter Y. Thus, the U.S. had no real interest in joining France
and Great Britain to destroy Libya’s government via NATO, but it did, because
of the one-sided support of NATO. The U.S. and Russia have a common
anti-terrorist interest and so do the U.S. and European countries, but working
out agreements on this particular matter with Russia is almost impossible while
viewing Russia as an enemy over Crimea and adopting sanctions.
By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Trump has cracked the
U.S. as superpower’s state-to-state cement to some extent. He has reduced the bonding
with European countries on this particular matter. They are taking this to mean
that other arrangements, such as NATO and many others, are now less secure.
Time will tell.
The world will be a safer place if the U.S. role as superpower
and unilateral world policeman diminishes. If the U.S. stops viewing certain
states as friends and enemies with nothing in between, this reduces the chances
of war breaking out and it reduces the chances of large wars that drag in
allied states that have no real interest in a war except to make good on their
friendship to the U.S. as superpower. There was really little countrywide
reason for NATO to have joined the U.S. in Afghanistan and little countrywide
(not personal or narrow political interest) reason for the U.S. to have joined
NATO in Yugoslavia.
If the U.S. as superpower reduces its practice of dividing the
world into the “free world” and “other” or along some other monochromatic
criterion, then individual states won’t have to align themselves accordingly.
The world can move toward a more variegated and complex system of arrangements
that address specific individual matters of importance to the states. The U.S.
will be open to making deals with a given state on some matters and going
against that same state on others. There will be less tendency for a
dichotomous attitude of friend/enemy that colors relations across the board.
The evidence in Trump’s rhetoric that he sees matters in this
way is that he is willing to make deals that are in America’s interests. He may
not live up to this goal, but he has expressed it and withdrawing from the
Paris Agreement is a clear step in that direction.
If Trump continued in this direction of questioning existing
arrangements, he’d open up possibilities that are currently foreclosed and
hardly even thought of or articulated. The results in specific cases could be
good or bad, for better or worse than currently, depending on his decisions.
However, it is a sound general objective to move the U.S. government away from
creating a unipolar world government based upon ideas, goals, and systems of
the U.S. as sole superpower, or as world policeman, or as world superdaddy who
knows what’s best for its children, i.e., other countries that it regards as
having inferior economies and inferior legal and political systems.
The
political world of states is now flowing along a dangerously confrontational
course that’s taken shape after the end of the Cold War, and it’s one that
increasingly pits the U.S. against Russia and China. The U.S. withdrawal from
the Paris Agreement has political importance mainly in what it might mean for
altering this flow and the entire course of the world order. This is hard to
forecast because Trump is mercurial. That acknowledged, this decision does
define his stance on foreign policy as being sharply different from past
administrations. Trump already dumped the trade deal known as TPP, at least for
the time being. This is another sign that he’s willing to take or actually
taking a far different course than what Clinton, Bush and Obama have followed.
The Trilateral Commission approach that has been dominant had
the U.S., Western Europe and Japan as the three sides of the triangle. These
were poised against Russia and China. By rejecting the Paris Agreement, Trump
has just altered the U.S. relations with Germany and France. Although their
leaders may be talking climate, that’s not of central importance. It is Trump’s
rejection of the political family bonds that they are used to and considered
unbreakable that’s their significant gripe, their worry, and the reason for
their negative reactions. To some extent, Trump has shifted the U.S. relations
with Japan too, having made remarks about North Korea and Japan. This too shows
that Trump is open to going against the Trilateral party line, at least so far.
Michael S.
Rozeff [send him
mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New
York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on
American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free
e-book The
U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.
Previous
article by Michael
S. Rozeff: Why N. Korea Wants Nuclear Capabilities
