TÜRKİYE ORTA ASYA HABER KKUORDİNATÖRÜ

WORLD TURKISH NEWS / WORLD TURKISH NEWS Trump's Old Strategy Is Leading Us to World War III One wonders what's going on in the minds of the architects of President Trump's foreign policy. It's as if they've all studied classic history books on the causes of world wars – Margaret MacMillan's "The War to End the Peace," E.H. Carr's "Twenty Years' Crisis" – and then said to themselves: We want to bring the world to exactly this point. Mr. Trump, both in his first term and the first eleven months of his second term, has made it clear that the post-Cold War bipartisan consensus, in which the U.S. oversaw an economically integrated world order governed by common laws regulating property relations, trade, and conflict, is no longer viable. Instead, the White House is offering a vision of a world divided into competing spheres of influence. This month, the White House released its National Security Strategy report, aimed at formalizing this transition. The report contains all the elements of a victimized "America First" nationalism: it condemns globalization, free trade, and foreign aid, rejects nation-building, and calls on NATO members to allocate a larger proportion of their GDP to defense spending. The report warns that the United States will no longer "forever shoulder global burdens that are not directly linked to its national interests." The essence of the report is the promise to "re-assert and implement the Monroe Doctrine to re-establish American supremacy." In the past, militarists used the Monroe Doctrine largely out of habit, as a repetition of a familiar slogan. But here, it plays a more concrete role in defining what a future world order prioritizing America might look like. Skip to content Skip to site index Advertisement Read in Spanish One wonders what goes on in the minds of the architects of President Trump's foreign policy. It's as if they're all reading classic history books on the causes of world wars – Margaret MacMillan's "The War to End the Peace," E.H. Carr's "Twenty Years' Crisis"—they examined it and then said to themselves: This is exactly where we want to get the world. Mr. Trump, both in his first term and the first eleven months of his second term, made it clear that the post-Cold War bipartisan consensus, in which the United States oversaw an economically integrated world order governed by common laws regulating property relations, trade, and conflict, was no longer functioning. Instead, the White House is offering a vision of a world divided into competing spheres of influence. This month, the White House released its National Security Strategy report, aimed at codifying this transition. The report contains all the points associated with a victimized "America First" nationalism: it condemns globalization, free trade, and foreign aid; it rejects nation-building; and it calls on NATO members to allocate a larger proportion of their GDP to defense spending. The report warns that the United States will no longer "shoulder global burdens that are not directly linked to its national interests forever." The essence of the report is the phrase, "to reassert and implement the Monroe Doctrine to re-establish American supremacy." In the past, militarists have largely used the Monroe Doctrine as a repetition of a familiar slogan, out of habit. Here, however, "America First" plays a more concrete role in defining what the future world order might look like. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Monroe Doctrine is neither a treaty nor a law. It originated in 1823 as a simple proclamation by President James Monroe recognizing the independence of the Spanish-American republics and warning Europe that the Western Hemisphere was a no-go zone for "future colonization." In 1845, President James K. Polk was one of the first to put this proclamation in writing and used "Mr. Monroe's doctrine" in his attempt to take California from Mexico before the British. Polk also referenced Monroe when annexing Texas. Subsequent presidents, using the doctrine like an overt police order, authorized a series of military invasions and US-backed coups. By the late 19th century, Latin Americans had coined a new word to describe US interventionism: Monroísmo. It makes sense that the Trump administration would invoke this old diplomatic cliché to define its foreign policy philosophy. As the world order becomes divided into competing spheres of influence, each regional power needs to control its own hinterland: Moscow, in the former Soviet republics, among other places; Beijing, in the South China Sea and beyond. And the United States, in Latin America. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said, "If you're focused on America and 'America First,' you have to start with your own hemisphere." And the Trump administration did just that during its presidency.