Personal politics: Donald Trump and the European political structure

(1)

Master Thesis in Political Science: International Organisations Leiden University Mitchell Zee S1413864 January 10, 2019 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. A.C. Verdun Second Reader: Dr. N.R.J.B. Blarel Word count: 9153

PERSONAL POLITICS

(2)

1

Introduction

Challenging The International Structure

On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump became the 45th president of the United States of America. He had won the election in part because of his promise to put America first. Globalism, according to Trump, had deprived the United States of resources it could have used to improve the lives of Americans, instead of being spent on other countries. It had also transported manufacturing jobs overseas, away from working class Americans. Globalism had chained the U.S. to rules concerning climate change that had stifled the U.S. coal and oil industry. Trump had promised to right these wrongs against the U.S. when he would become president and “make America great again.” Other countries, including allies, would no longer take advantage of the U.S. as they had done for years.

While the concept of making America great again through a policy of putting America first found support among a significant number of Americans, it logically failed to have the same impact abroad in Europe. At the time, the question arose what this America first policy would mean for European countries, as many of them had been significant trade partners with the U.S. Now, near the end of 2018, after the first two years of Trump’s presidency have nearly passed, it can be said that when Trump presented his America first policy, he truly meant it. The past two years have seen Trump try and start a trade war with the European Union over steel, aluminum and cars, he has formally announced the U.S. is pulling out of the Paris Agreement and he announced the U.S. would no longer support the Iran deal. All of these moves surprised and in some way shocked European allies. Trump had started a policy unlike any since World War II.

It is the aim of this paper to more closely look at how heads of state of certain European countries dealt with the change in international politics that is Donald Trump. To

(4)

3

accomplish this, the core hypothesis of this thesis is that, after two years, Donald Trump’s agency has not altered the political structure in which European heads of state operate. To support this thesis, several case studies concerning interactions between European heads of state and Trump will be discussed and analyzed. The European heads of state that will be discussed are German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron. In the section on methodology it will be further discussed why these individuals have been chosen. In the following section the literature related to the subject will be discussed to more clearly define the context and theoretical framework in which this paper makes its case.

(5)

4

Literature Review

This section will outline the theories and concepts that will be used to answer the main research question. First, the debate in International Relations concerning agency and structure will be discussed in order to provide a general overview for the theory on which this thesis will be based. The next part will discuss and argue why and how Trump has been operating outside the established international structure for the first two years of his presidency. This will be done by discussing the history and structure of American foreign policy. Through this analysis it will be argued that Trump appears to be an anomaly in the course of U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, it will be argued that politics is an issue that Trump takes very personal, which directly affects how he conducts foreign policy. This personal aspect of Trump’s foreign policy will be reflected in the case studies, as they will focus on the more personal relationships between some prominent figures within Europe and the U.S. president.

Structure and Agency

Within the social sciences there is the ongoing debate concerning whether it is structure or agency that determines human behavior. Structure is defined as the patters that to a certain extent dictate the available actions individuals can take. Agency is defined as the extent to which individuals are able to act freely and make independent choices. Thus the debate can be seen as an argument between socialization and autonomy and whether one’s acts are defined by the established social structure or if one is able to act as a free agent. This debate will used in this thesis by applying it to the current U.S. president Donald Trump and his foreign policy. The following section will argue that Trump’s agency breaks not only with American foreign policy structure, but also clashes with the agency of several European heads of state that do operate within the international structure.

(6)

5

During the Cold War most IR scholars recognized that structures often defined the actions of states.1 Both realist and liberalist scholars, despite disagreeing on the specifics, concluded that no matter the level of agency of the states, this agency was shaped and determined within a certain structure.2 Constructivists argued for a more balanced division; they believed that while actors work within a certain structure, they are often aware of this and are able to see how their choices affect this structure.3 But how does Trump fit within this debate between structure and agency?

Nick Rengger states that “it is the structure of the international system that causes states (and, thus the individuals who act for states) to act in the manner that they do.”4 I believe this is not entirely the case with Trump, as it has become increasingly apparent from sudden staff changes in his administration that he often disregards what his advisors have to say, instead favoring his own gut feeling. In this sense, Trump does not completely fit within the theory that structure determines the actions of agents. In the following section it will be argued that Trump as an actor on the international political stage tries to operate, either intentionally or unintentionally, outside of the established international structure in order to get direct results.

John Peterson, when discussing the constructivist view on structure and agency, asserts that “Simply put, constructivists view structure and agency as mutually constitutive, not least because agents perceive that -and more particularly how- their choices can alter structures.”5

I think this can be applied to Trump, in that he sees himself and the U.S. as a powerful player on the world stage that can decide certain courses of actions and outcomes by throwing its weight around. However, moves like pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord,

1_{John Peterson, "Structure, Agency and Transatlantic Relations in the Trump Era," Journal of European}

Integration 40, no. 5 (2018): 637-652, 639.

2_{Peterson, “Structure, Agency,” 639.} 3

Ibidem, 639.

4_{Nick Rengger, “Realism, Tragedy and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in International Political Thought,” in}

Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International Relations, edited by M. C. Williams,

Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 120.

(7)

6

moving the embassy in Israel and leaving the Iran deal show the lack of effect it had on allies (as they collectively did not follow the course the U.S. had taken). This paper through further case studies will show that Trump’s strategy does not have the effect he most likely intended it to have.

Foreign Policy Analysis does not necessarily assume that structure trumps agency. It recognizes that international structure matters, but only because it is perceived by those making foreign policy.6 This gives a significant amount of agency to those actors. However, Trump does not seems to fit neatly into this theory. As mentioned earlier, Trump often seems to ignore the advice given to him by his senior officials that are appointed to handle specific elements of U.S. foreign policy. This creates a disconnect within the administration; on the one hand there are those officials who are aware of the structure and recognize its importance, regardless if they agree with it or not and on the other there is the president, who at best is similarly aware of the existing international structure, but chooses to operate outside of it when possible and at worst does not comprehend the significance of certain facets of the international order. If Bob Woodward’s book ‘Fear’ is to be believed, the situation within the White House has at points seen such disarray that some officials regarded it as necessary to make sure the president did not see certain international related documents, as they feared he would make a hasty and unwise decision that could upset the international order. Some have even suggested the president is not fully aware of the history of the different relationships between countries. It has also become increasingly clear Trump often values personal connections he has with the leaders of other nations more than the relationships that have been built up throughout the course of history. He seemed to have little problem with criticizing the leaders of staunch U.S. allies like Trudeau, Merkel, Macron and May, while being far more

(8)

7

reserved towards leaders like Putin and Mohammed Bin Salman, who leaders countries that are in the U.S. largely regarded with more suspicion.

Trump As An Anomaly In American Foreign Policy

At the heart of U.S. foreign policy is the concept of ‘American exceptionalism’. American exceptionalism is the belief that the U.S. is a “chosen nation” that acts as an example to the rest of the world. The idea, originally expressed by one of the first settlers, John Winthrop, who saw the young Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “city upon a hill”, has evolved into a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Throughout the course of U.S. history two main narratives have developed from the concept of American exceptionalism. These are the exemplar and intervention narratives. The exemplar narrative claims the U.S. must first improve or even perfect things at home before it can set its sights on actively helping the rest of the world. Achieving this would require such an amount of time and resources that the U.S. could not become heavily involved with other nations. Thus, improving oneself and leading by example is at the core of this narrative. The interventionist narrative claims the U.S. can only live up to its self-imposed chosen nation ideal by actively engaging with the rest of the world in many different ways, most notably politically, economically, socially and culturally.7 A much more active and outward focused role is thus attributed of the U.S.

Prior to World War II, the exemplar narrative had been dominant in U.S. politics. Although the U.S. did participate in World War I, it did so reluctantly, as many had long been opposed to the idea of the U.S. throwing itself into a war on the European continent. Up until this point in time, the U.S. had managed to stay relatively secluded from affairs outside of the American continent. Although President Wilson tried to set up the League of Nations, America’s own refusal to join ultimately caused the effort to fail. It clearly showed the U.S.

7_{Jason A. Edwards, "Make America Great Again: Donald Trump and Redefining the U.S. Role in the}

(9)

8

was not willing to take an active role in global affairs. Only after World War II and the beginning of the Cold War did the U.S. start to become more involved with other nations, which resulted in the interventionist narrative becoming increasingly prominent in foreign policy rhetoric. As the Cold War heated up and the conflict between capitalism and communism became fiercer, the U.S. began to see it as its duty to protect the world from the influence of the Soviet Union and promote values such as democracy and freedom. To keep communism at bay, U.S. presidents argued that the U.S. could no longer sit back, but had to take a more active role as the leader of the free world. The U.S. would become both leader and example. Presidents claimed that if nations under the protection of the U.S. should fall, this would have a direct impact on American institutions. It was therefore in the best interest of the U.S. to take on an interventionist role, protecting U.S. interests both at home and abroad. The interventionist narrative thus manifested itself as globalism, which became the dominant structure for U.S. foreign policy.

When Trump ran for the office of president in 2016, he made apparent he had several strong opinions on how previous administrations had handled U.S. foreign policy.8 According to Trump, America’s foreign policy had spiraled into disarray because former presidents had focused too heavily on a policy of globalism, to the detriment of Americanism.9 The U.S. needed to come first. In essence, Trump returned to the exemplar narrative that had been replaced by the globalist interventionist narrative. Trump thus deviated from other presidents since World War II in how he aimed to satisfy U.S. interest. As Jason Edwards argues, Trump breaks from the post-World War II consensus of pursuing globalism.10 As president Trump returned to the exemplar narrative, believing that the U.S. must first take care of itself before committing to any multilateral institutions or international co-operation that is not in the direct

8_{Edwards, “Make America Great Again,” 177.} 9

Ibidem, 182.

(10)

9

interest of the U.S. In his eyes, if an agreement is not in the best interests of the U.S., it is not an agreement worth committing to.

Trump criticized nearly all of the global activities the U.S. had undertaken since World War II. According to him, the U.S. had been taken advantage of by its allies and because of that laughed at by its enemies. Trade deals like NAFTA needed to be renegotiated and Europe had increasingly relied on U.S. protection without paying its share. A point often raised by Trump during his campaign was that other members of NATO were not paying their agreed upon share for defenses, which Trump believed forced the US to invest more money that could have been spent for domestic purposes. Furthermore, because of unfair tariffs and taxes on American goods, China and Europe exported large amounts of products to the U.S., without importing products at equal value. Trump claimed this had created a trade deficit and encouraged companies to manufacture outside of the U.S., something that cost American’s their jobs. Even the Paris Agreement, which aimed to decrease the emission of gasses harmful to the environment and was signed in 2015 when Barack Obama was still president, was unfair to the U.S. Trump’s solution: pull the U.S. out of any agreements and deals not directly beneficial to the U.S. and instead focus on improving domestically, thus breaking with the established structure of globalism.

With the Trump administration well into its second year at the time of writing, the question can be asked whether this changing of U.S. foreign policy structure works for the U.S. Harold Koh, who served as a legal advisor under Reagan, Clinton and Obama, provides in his work “The Trump Administration and International Law” an analysis of the effectiveness of the foreign policy Trump has adopted in roughly the first two years of his administration.11 Koh mainly uses the Obama administration as a comparison for the current

11

Harold Hongju Koh, The Trump Administration and International Law, New York, NY: Oxford University Press 2019.

(11)

10

administration. He argues the Obama administration used ‘smart power’, which combined “hard” and “soft” power that gains legitimacy from espousing international law and common values.12 “Engage-translate-leverage” is at the core of this strategy.13 Smart power also entails that when given the option is available, a state ought to opt for engagement and working together with other states, rather than unilateralism. A second important aspect is that when international law does not directly apply, a solution should be found to translate existing law so that it does apply, rather than denying the applicability of laws entirely.14 The third element of this strategy, leveraging, consists of combining legal arguments with other tools at a state’s disposal, like military force, diplomacy, technology and international institutions to achieve more complex foreign policy outcomes.15 Koh argues that the Obama administration made a significant effort to apply this “engage-translate-leverage” strategy. In contrast, Koh argues, the Trump administration decided to move away from the strategy of smart power and instead focusses heavily on anti-globalist philosophy.16 He analyzes several important events that occurred during the first two years of the Trump administration and concludes that in practically all of them, the U.S. has come out worse due to Trump’s tactics.17 Although Trump is able to change the foreign policy structure of the U.S. from within, he has so far failed to change the international structure in a similar way. This has caused a certain disconnect between the U.S. and some European countries.

This structural clash with Europe is not strange. Not only has Trump drastically changed course with his America first policy from a globalist to a more protectionist approach, but his rhetoric and style of diplomacy are also distinctly different from his most

12_{Koh, The Trump Administration, 12.} 13_{Ibidem, 9.}

14_{Ibidem, 10.} 15

Ibidem, 11.

16_{Ibidem, 13.}

17_{Koh discusses the Paris agreement and the Iran deal as instances where Trump left a multilateral agreement as}

a power move, but got nothing for it in return. Instead, the U.S. has relegated itself to the sidelines and removed any influence they had if they had stayed. Ibidem, 69.

(12)

11

recent predecessor. In his book, “Dangerous Doctrine How Obama's Grand Strategy Weakened America”, Robert Kaufman assesses the foreign policy doctrine of Barack Obama. The analysis provides a good comparison for the Trump administration. Although the book at times refers to the Obama administration as a whole, more often than not it takes Obama as an individual and compares what the former president said as such to what the entire administration in practice did. This style of analysis can also be applied to Trump, as through his abundant use of Twitter it has become clear the current president prefers to speak for himself, rather than let his administration speak for him. Similarly to Koh, Kaufman affirms Obama had a policy of multilateralism, engagement and diplomacy.18 However, unlike Koh and Edwards, Kaufman believes it is Obama who deviated from former presidents with his foreign policy.19 Kaufman asserts that Obama’s nontraditional approach to foreign policy is his strategy of “leading from behind”. According to Ryan Lizza, this form of leadership is the result of “two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining … and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world”.20 The U.S. would need to pursue a strategy of modesty and stealth in order to further their interests and ideals. This definition is striking, as it seems to be the exact opposite of what Trump is currently doing as president. Rather than accepting any faults the U.S. might have and are trying to amend them, Trump has held firm to his belief that the U.S. “the envy of the world”.21 Furthermore, Trump appears to take politics very personal. As Koh argues in his chapter on “Countries of Concern”, in which he discusses how Trump deals with North Korea and Russia, Trump largely decides whether he is favorable towards a country based on his personal interaction and relation with its head of state. This further underscores that Trump is not truly confined by any structure. As the

18_{Robert Gordon Kaufman, Dangerous Doctrine How Obama's Grand Strategy Weakened America, Lexington,}

Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2016, 3.

19

Kaufman, Dangerous Doctrine, 4.

20_{Ryan Lizza, “The Consequentialist: How The Arab Spring Remade Obama’s Foreign Policy,” New Yorker,}

May 2, 2011.

21

Donald J. Trump, November 15, 2018, 12:59 AM.

(13)

12

hypothesis is that Donald Trump’s agency has not altered the political structure in which European heads of state operate, this paper attempts to add to the general debate on whether agency trumps structure.

(14)

13

Design and Methodology

The following section will discuss the case studies chosen to support the hypothesis that Trump’s agency did not significantly alter the European political structure. Three individuals have been selected as a model of comparison for Trump. These are German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron. They have been chosen as representatives of the European political structure as they are the three biggest trade partners of the U.S. within Europe. Furthermore, all are members of the G20 and the G7. All of this and more causes them to be major players on the European continent, in the EU and the world. In addition, the heads of state of the selected countries have had the most frequent contact with president Trump compared to other European states. These contact and relationship that resulted has been taken into account in the discussions that will follow later in this paper.

Three case studies have been selected. The first is the G20 summit in Hamburg that took place from July 7 to 8 in 2017. It was the first major event where world leaders gathered after Trump had formally announced the U.S. would leave the Paris agreement. This climate accord was of great importance to many of its members, as a significant amount of research on climate change over the years had shown a change was needed in how the world treated the environment. Since the event was organized by Germany, Merkel had made climate talks a key part of the summit. Two moments of interest related to the summit will be discussed: First, a speech presented by Merkel at the G20 Dialogue Forum with Non-Governmental Organizations. This speech contains implicit critique of Trump’s foreign policy that will be discussed. Second, May’s bilateral meeting with Trump at the summit in Hamburg and her speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September. The second case study will focus on the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K. by analyzing and discussing May’s visit to the U.S. shortly after Trump’s inauguration and Trump’s official state visit to

(15)

14

the U.K. This case study was chosen to show the delicate balance May tried to maintain between appealing to Trump, but not to an extent that would alienate her from the European political structure. The third case study will focus on the World War I armistice centenary. During this event, Macron delivered a speech that denounced the rise of nationalism. The speech was seen as a direct critique on Trump, who not long before had stated nationalism was a positive thing. In addition, a speech by Merkel containing similar critique to Macron’s will be discussed. This case study was not only chosen because Macron’s speech elicited a direct response from Trump, but also because it is significant that the head of state of both France and Germany, during a commemoration of an event as impactful as World War I, chose to implicitly condemn Trump’s behavior in international politics.

The primary sources that are used in this paper are official speeches delivered by the heads of state of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. When possible, transcripts have been used to translate from either German to English, or French to English. The transcripts were gathered from official government sites. Case study two makes use of parts of an exclusive interview with Trump from news outlet the Sun. The audio that was available has been used as a source. Likewise, for the press conference during Trump’s visit to the U.K., a complete recording of the event was used as a source. In addition to these sources, several of the tweets from Trump’s personal Twitter account have been used as this was deemed the most direct representation of his thoughts, feelings and policies. The main method of analysis used in this paper has been discourse analysis. This was chosen due to the nature of the sources. The intent was to analyze the speeches and discuss the implications the text makes and what the authors convey without directly stating it.

I realize that analyzing the relationship between individuals, especially political figures is a complex issue, involving many aspects of politics that I am unable to fully discuss in this paper. Here, in my analysis of the different heads of state I perhaps overly emphasize the

(16)

15

relevance of some aspects of their political actions. Moreover, I realize that it is always difficult to assess the “true” motives underlying individual behavior. Nevertheless, on the basis of a close reading of the speeches given by these heads of state, and taking into account the development of their political relationships with each other, I hope to show that there is indeed a strong resistance against President Donald Trump and his policies.

(17)

16

The G20 Summit In Hamburg: Uncompromising Agency

The 2017 G20 Hamburg summit was held on 7-8 July in Hamburg, Germany and was the twelfth meeting of the Group of Twenty (G20). Among the many issues of global significance that were on the agenda, the most prominent were those of climate change, free trade and the management of forced mass migration. That Germany had decided to focus on these issues had caused uncertainty before the summit commenced concerning whether meaningful agreements could be reached, as especially on climate change and free trade the U.S. had shown it preferred to take a different course of action than many other countries. Prior to the summit, Trump had made public the U.S.’s intention to leave the Paris climate agreement and had voiced his displeasure with the trade deals on steel the U.S. had with both China and Europe.

In a speech leading up to the G20 summit in Hamburg, Merkel expressed some of her concerns and hopes regarding the continued integration of states around the globe.22 The speech was not made in the direct presence of other heads of state that would attend the summit, but nevertheless contained notes of criticism applicable to the US.

I think that, especially when the international environment is particularly challenging like it is this year, we should seize the opportunity to establish common interests and achieve progress through joint action. That is always the better approach than for individual nations to try and go it alone.23 […] Recently, we have in too many countries witnessed a tendency towards self-isolation and hampering critical dialogue. In some cases, we’ve even seen attempts to prevent or suppress such dialogue. As a result, the freedoms of expression and of the press are stifled […] The G20 must

22

Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G20 Dialogue Forum with Non Governmental

Organisations (C20) in Hamburg on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 18-12-2018, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg- en/chancellor/speech-by-federal-chancellor-angela-merkel-at-the-g20-dialogue-forum-with-non-governmental-organisations-c20-in-hamburg-on-19-june-2017-427264.

(18)

17

therefore highlight the advantages of trade being intensive, international and fair – in contrast to protectionist policies. If you interfere with the establishment of, or even sever, global value chains, all you do is harm everyone involved, including yourself.24

It is no coincidence that Merkel began her speech by mentioning the challenges in the international environment. While the international problems had been present and numerous before Trump became president and entered the international political world, his conduct had not made things easier for certain allies. Especially Merkel, as her professional relationship with the American president had not been entirely smooth. However, what makes it more obvious that she is referring to the U.S. in her speech is that she specifically mentioned isolationism and protectionism. Trump’s tendency to make political and economic decisions that leaned towards these concepts, like pulling out of the Paris agreement and using increased tariffs as a threat, had affected the trust of European allies. Merkel’s decreased faith in the reliability of the U.S. shows when she says that when interfering with the establishment of global value change, all one brings is harm. Trump’s agency clearly clashes with the structure of European politics. While Trump’s direct conduct and hard words had been more easily accepted within the U.S., it had made other heads of state wary, rather than intimidated, as Merkel showed here. While not mirroring Trump’s rhetoric, Merkel indirectly but firmly advised the U.S. it was walking a path on which other countries would not blindly follow it.

During the second day of the summit in Hamburg May and Trump held a bilateral meeting. This was the first time the two would meet in a personal formal meeting since May had visited Trump shortly after he was inaugurated. This would also be the first bilateral meeting Trump was in since he formally announced his intent to withdraw from the Paris agreement. After Trump had formally announced on the 1st of June that the U.S. would withdraw from the agreement, May’s reaction was slow compared to that of Germany and

(19)

18

France who, together with Italy, immediately issued a joint statement that rejected Trump’s assertion that the agreement could be renegotiated.25 While these countries made a clear public statement against Trump, Downing Street only issued a statement that May had conveyed her disappointment to Trump. This meeting could prove to be the perfect opportunity to raise the climate issue, yet also came with significant pressure for May, as the international community expected her to raise the climate issue, yet she could not afford to alienate Trump with Brexit still an ongoing issue domestically. May thus needed to work from within the European political structure without it influencing Trump’s agency.

However, the talk ended up revolving mostly around a possible trade deal between the U.K. and the U.S, with neither truly addressing Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement. At the Summit Trump said the U.S. and U.K. had a “very special relationship”.26 It was clear that while other countries had been more open of their disapproval of some choices, May seemed to put economic interests before anything else. With Brexit not going as smoothly as some might have wanted, a solid relationship with the U.S. would be of increased importance to the U.K. However, May’s effort to stay on Trump’s good side seemed to have little effect in this instance, as even though the meeting mostly revolved around a possible trade deal, no solid agreements and dates were planned. Even a definitive date for visit from Trump to the U.K., for which Downing Street had extended an invitation, did not get finalized.27 It can thus be argued that so far, May’s continued effort to not alienate Trump had not resulted in anything positive.

25_{Jonathan Watts and Kate Connolly, “World leaders react after Trump rejects Paris climate deal,” The}

Guardian, June 2, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/trump-withdraw-paris-climate-deal-world-leaders-react.

26_{Anushka Asthana, “Trump expects trade deal with UK to be completed 'very, very quickly',” The Guardian,}

July 8, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/08/theresa-may-in-bid-to-boost-post-brexit-trade-with-g20-meetings.

(20)

19

Three months later, in a speech given at the UN General Assembly in September 2017, May more firmly criticized the U.S. president. In her speech May summarized the different crises that “do not recognize or respect geographical boundaries” like refugees, climate change and weaknesses in the global trading system.28 She stated that these problems are “pushing some countries towards protectionism in the belief that this best defends the interests of their own people” and that amidst the global disorder this has caused there have been states that have been “deliberately flouting for their own gain the rules and standards that have secured our collective prosperity and security.”29 Although May immediately refers to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime following this segment, she was undoubtedly also referring to the U.S, as shortly after she refers directly to the Paris Climate Accord:

And it is this rules-based system which we have developed, including the institutions, the international frameworks of free and fair trade, agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and laws and conventions like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enables the global cooperation through which we can protect those values.30

May’s speech before the General Assembly is in stark contrast to her meeting with bilateral meeting with Trump during the G20 summit. Here, May steadfastly defends the international structure of rules and standards. This indicates that, at least when not in the presence of Trump, May does not deviate from the international structure.

Even before the G20 had started there was a certain tension surrounding the event. It was unclear whether Trump would go back on his withdrawal from the Paris agreement or be more open to globalized trade with other countries. Trump caved on none of these issues, to the dismay of Merkel. In her closing statement, the German chancellor reiterated her belief

28_{Theresa May's speech to the UN General Assembly 2017. Retrieved 19-12-2018,}

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/theresa-mays-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-2017.

29

Theresa May's speech to the UN General Assembly 2017.

(21)

20

that protectionism should be avoided and multilateral institutions should be trusted and used.31 This indicated that little real progress had been made with the U.S. in terms of trade. On top of this, Merkel deplored that the U.S. had decided to stick with their decision of pulling out of the Paris Agreement. May had used her meeting with Trump to discuss a trade deal instead of talking about the Paris agreement. With no clear agreements reached with the UK, and the U.S. not having changed their stance on the issues of climate and trade, it seemed Trump had successfully resisted the structure of Merkel and May.

31_{BBC News, “The G20 SUMMIT: Angela Merkel statement- BBC News,” Filmed [July 2017], Duration 12:53,}

(22)

21

The “Special Relationship” of the United States and the United Kingdom

The relationship between the U.S. and the UK has been a special one since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. It was therefore a surprise that it would take Trump over a year after his inauguration before he visited one of the most steadfast allies of the U.S. What made it even more surprising was the fact that May had extended a formal invitation after she had visited Trump shortly after his inauguration. Within a week of his inauguration, Trump met with May on the 26th of January, 2017. May was the first head of government to visit Trump during his presidency, which was seen as a sign of the strong connection between the two states that has spanned decades since World War II.32 During her visit, Prime Minister May addressed Republican leaders in Philadelphia. As this was her first formal meeting between both heads of government during the Trump administration, it was the first chance to reaffirm the alliance between the two states. The speech with which May addressed members of Congress was ripe with mentions of the long history of U.S. and U.K. cooperation, emphasizing the role the two countries have played and should continue to play on the global stage to sustain their shared values. May took special care to highlight the leading role the U.S. has played over the years, commenting that “an America that is strong and prosperous at home is a nation that can lead abroad.”33

Continuing to emphasize the similarities the U.S. shares with its overseas ally, May echoed Trump’s ‘America First’ policy:

But we have chosen a different future for our country. A future that sees us restore our parliamentary sovereignty and national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit. A future that sees us take back control of the things that matter to us -- things like our national borders and

32_{Heather Stewart and David Smith, “'Opposites attract': Theresa May signals strong relationship with Donald}

Trump,” The Guardian, January 27, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/opposites-attract-theresa-may-signals-strong-relationship-with-trump.

33_{CNN, “Transcript of Theresa May's speech to US Republicans,” January 27, 2017,}

(23)

22

immigration policy, and the way we decide and interpret our own laws -- so that we are able to shape a better, more prosperous future for the working men and women of Britain. A future that sees us step up with confidence to a new, even more internationalist role, where we meet our responsibilities to our friends and allies, champion the international cooperation and partnerships that project our values around the world, and continue to act as one of the strongest and most forceful advocates for business, free markets and free trade anywhere around the globe. This is a vision of a future that my country can unite around -- and that I hope your country, as our closest friend and ally, can welcome and support.” […] This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.34

It was clear from the speech that May realized she was in a difficult situation. On the one hand she intended to strengthen the relationship between the U.K. and the U.S., as an improved economic relationship with the U.S. could prove immensely helpful if the U.K. leaving the European Union would cause economic troubles domestically. However, on the other hand, she could not completely separate herself from the European continent yet and commit herself to a president who she could not yet fully trust. The passage above is interesting, as it shows how May attempts to appeal to both sides, those being Trump himself and the established role of the U.K. within the international structure. The first part of the passage shows May was emphasizing points that were important aspects during Trump’s campaign. Mentioning sovereignty, borders, immigration and the improvement of the

(24)

23

workings class are all emphasized to show the similarities between the U.S. and the U.K. However, throughout the first half, but even more so in the second half, May also mentions the importance of the international role the two countries had to fulfill. This indicated May was not ready to blindly trust Trump would prove to be a steadfast ally.

With this seemingly successful visit to the U.S. May had high hopes that the president would soon visit the U.K., truly cementing the special relationship between the two allies. However, it took a considerable amount of time for Trump to visit the U.K. Initially February 2018 was chosen as the period in which the U.S. president would make an official visit to the U.K.35 No exact date was determined however, and the visit ended up being canceled just a month before the intended visit in January 2018. It would take another half year before Trump would finally visit the U.K. The official state visit took place from the 12th to 15th of July. The visit consisted of a visit to the U.S. embassy, followed by a dinner at Blenheim Palace attended by May and several businessmen on July 12. The following day, July 13, May and Trump visited the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, where a military demonstration had been organized for the president. Both heads of state afterwards retreated to Chequers, the residence of Britain’s Prime Minister, for a lunch and a meeting. Immediately after they attended a press conference in the garden. Trump would then meet Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor castle before meeting the secretary of state of Scotland. Trump spent the 14th of July golfing at his resort in Scotland before leaving the day after.

During Trump’s visit to the U.K. he participated in an exclusive interview with the Sun. During the interview several subjects in regards to the U.K., like Brexit, trade and the military, were discussed. In the first part of the interview Trump stated he had advised May

(25)

24

what she could do in regards to Brexit and the U.K.’s position within the EU.36 While Trump was not willing to share the advice during the interview, May later revealed he had told her she should sue the EU.37 Judging from her reaction in the interview and her silence during the press conference when Trump brought up the subject, it seems May realized the somewhat odd nature of the advice.38 The interview was published shortly before the press conference on July 13, the second day of Trump’s visit. Although Trump does not directly speak ill of the British prime minister, the views he expressed on a trade deal with the U.K. and how May had dealt with Brexit severely undermined the prospect of a trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K. in the near future, which increased the pressure on May.

Questions about the interview and Trump’s comments were abundant during the press conference in Chequers garden.39 While Trump was asked to elaborate on some of his remarks in the interview, May was asked what she thought of the statements Trump had made to how she had handled Brexit and made dealing with the U.S. more difficult. May provided no answers to questions concerning the interview, instead glossing over them and answering secondary questions that were asked. This course of action is not surprising, as she could not afford to be critical of what the president had said in the interview, especially when standing right next to him. May’s conduct here follows the same pattern of her bilateral meeting with Trump during the G20 summit in Hamburg. Gaining goodwill, or at least not damaging her relationship with Trump, takes priority over defending herself. The majority of May’s answers revolved around Brexit, while Trump kept repeating positive things about the U.K.

36

Tom Newton Dunn, “TRUMP'S BREXIT BLAST Donald Trump told Theresa May how to do Brexit ‘but she wrecked it’ – and says the US trade deal is off,” The Sun, July 13, 2018,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6766531/trump-may-brexit-us-deal-off/.

37_{The Independent, Twitter Post. July 15, 2018, 11:07 AM,}

https://twitter.com/independent/status/1018421739997614080.

38

Ioannis Glinavos, “Should Theresa May take Donald Trump’s advice and sue the EU over Brexit? A legal expert explains,” The Conversation, July 17, 2018, http://theconversation.com/should-theresa-may-take-donald-trumps-advice-and-sue-the-eu-over-brexit-a-legal-expert-explains-100074.

39

Global News, “FULL Donald Trump, Theresa May press conference,” Filmed [July 2018], Duration 1:09:10, Posted [July, 2018], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxah3L3T_Lg.

(26)

25

and May specifically. While this did mitigate some of the damage done by the Sun interview, the conference showed that Trump clearly dominated the relationship between him and Theresa May. It was predominantly Trump that was speaking, with May often only speaking when Trump specifically asked her if she wanted to answer a certain question. Thus, as with the previous interaction like the meeting at the summit in Hamburg, May had to conform to Trump’s agency in order not diminish the possibility of a trade deal with the U.S.

While the visit was intended to show and strengthen the connection between the U.S. and the U.K., Trump’s statements in the Sun interview dashed the hope of a quick agreement on a trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K. The timing of the publication of the interview left May unable to properly defend herself and correct Trump, instead choosing to ignore the unfortunate situation and letting Trump take the lead during the press conference. The visit thus showed little of the “special relationship” that both leaders attempted to emphasize. It seemed to only exist in theory, not practice. May had gained nothing by adapting to Trump’s agency and had subsequently lost respect within her own political structure.

(27)

26

World War I Armistice Centenary: Keeping Ignorance At Bay

The most recent clash at the time of writing between Trump and European leaders occurred during the centenary of the World War I armistice. Several world leaders had gathered in Paris to commemorate the end of World War I. However, before the official commemoration on November 11, several heads of state including Macron, Merkel and Justin Trudeau had planned visits to separate cemeteries. However, Trump canceled his visit, while in his place White House chief of staff John Kelly and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff visited the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial in Belleau. A combination of reasons for his absence were given. According to several sources, the rain that day would have impaired traveling by helicopter and a drive by car would cause too much traffic problems. These explanations were viewed as rather odd by many, eliciting criticism from many sides. This caused Trump to become frustrated, blaming his staff for making the decision and not informing him the backlash it would cause to cancel the visit. Another factor that added to his foul mood were the results the U.S. midterm elections concerning the House of Representatives, which the Democrats had taken control of. On top of this, the following day Macron delivered a speech at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris that heavily criticized Trump:

Let’s remember: let’s take away none of the purity, the idealism, the higher principles that existed in the patriotism of our elders. In those dark hours, that vision of France as a generous nation, of France as a project, of France promoting universal values, was the exact opposite of the egotism of a people who look after only their interests, because patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of it. In saying “our interests first and who cares about the rest!” you wipe out what’s most valuable about a nation, what brings it alive, what leads it to greatness and what is most important: its moral values. […] Let’s combine our hopes instead of pitting our

(28)

27

fears against each other! Together, we can keep at bay these threats – global warming, poverty, hunger, disease, inequality and ignorance. […] Ruining this hope with a fascination for withdrawal, violence or domination would be a mistake for which future generations would rightly find us responsible.40

Macron’s speech was very poignant, as it was not only made in direct presence of Trump, who was standing among other world leaders, but also because the message it conveyed was very clear. The prima example of this was the passage where Macron exclaims “our interests first and who cares about the rest!”. This undoubtedly refers to Trump’s America first policy, and while both Merkel and May have spoken out against protectionism and isolationism in their own speeches, none contained a passage this direct. Whereas the messages of warning and condemnation in prior speeches had been draped in polite political language, this passage resembled Trump’s own direct rhetoric. It made clear that part of the speech had been directed at Trump, even more so because it was preceded by the condemnation of nationalism, when Trump as recently as October 22 had embraced the label of nationalist.41

It was clear the speech had affected Trump. There had already been some tension between the two heads of state as recently as a week earlier Macron had made mention of creating a European Army “to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.”42

On November 9, Trump tweeted he found the suggestion “very

40_{Commemoration of the centenary of the Armistice Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the}

Republic Paris – 11, November 2018. Retrieved 28-12-2018, https://onu.delegfrance.org/Emmanuel-Macron-s-speech-at-Commemoration-of-the-centenary-of-the-Armistice.

41_{William Cummings, “'I am a nationalist': Trump's embrace of controversial label sparks uproar,” USA Today,}

November 12, 2018, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/24/trump-says-hes-nationalist-what-means-why-its-controversial/1748521002/.

42_{Chris Stevenson and Jon Stone, “Trump attacks Macron's call for EU army to defend against US as 'very}

insulting',” November 9, 2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/eu-army-trump-macron-france-europe-military-us-russia-china-defence-a8627176.html.

(29)

28

insulting”.43

Two days after Macron’s speech, on November 13, it was clear Trump had realized the speech had been directed at him specifically, as he posted the following on Twitter:

The problem is that Emmanuel suffers from a very low Approval Rating in France, 26%, and an unemployment rate of almost 10%. He was just trying to get onto another subject. By the way, there is no country more Nationalist than France, very proud people-and rightfully so!... ...MAKE FRANCE GREAT AGAIN!44

The nature of the content of the tweet, which was a clear personal attack on Macron, shows Trump’s frustration with the French president. Macron had been able to agitate the U.S. president like no other European head of state had managed to do.

Although not as publicly recognized, Merkel presented a speech that critiqued Trump’s America first policies and his aversion against multilateral cooperation.45

This war, with its senseless bloodshed, shows where national arrogance and military hubris can lead. It also reminds us of the disastrous consequences of a lack of dialogue and compromise in politics and diplomacy.46

It is easy for military power and national arrogance to go hand in hand. A strong military provides a state with a certain amount of gravitas when dealing with other states concerning their defenses or international peace keeping missions. The position Trump has taken in regards to NATO fits Merkel’s warning; the US undoubtedly provides the most significant bulk of military power within NATO, and Trump has not been shy to point this out as

43_{Donald Trump, Twitter Post, November 9, 2018, 13:10 PM,}

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1061003186125856769.

44_{Donald Trump, Twitter Post, November 13, 2018, 05:17 and 05:18.}

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1062333534214520832 and

45_{Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the opening of the Paris Peace Forum on 11 November 2018.}

Retrieved 1-1-2019, https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-en/news/speech-by-federal-chancellor-angela-merkel-at-the-opening-of-the-paris-peace-forum-on-11-november-2018-1549780

(30)

29

president and president elect. Furthermore, Trump often threatened to cut the U.S. funding of NATO if other countries did not increase their pay.While it is doubtful Merkel fears the U.S. would threaten its allies with actual war, it would be a dangerous move in the contemporary political climate for the U.S. to stop supporting NATO. This would severely decrease the actual strength and legitimacy of the multilateral institution, something that could upset the current world order.

The peace that we have today, and that we sometimes take too much for granted, is anything but a matter of course. We must work to maintain it. That is why I, too, want to express the concern that I feel during our present commemoration. The concern, for example, that national blinkers will again be put on, which could once again lead to action that simply ignores our mutual interdependence, relations and ties. We see that international cooperation, the peaceful balancing of interests, and even the European peace project, are again being called into question. We see a willingness to push through one’s own interests – if need be, by using force.47

Just like Macron, Merkel too references the dangers of nationalism. She continues to stress the importance of cooperation and compromise, things that seemed to have become more difficult during Trump’s presidency. That both leaders mention this on the same day, yet separate from each other, indicates how deep the growing uncertainty towards the U.S. runs. It is clear from both president Macron and Chancellor Merkel’s speech that they view the U.S. as being on more dangerous footing than it has been in the previous years. Without mentioning president Trump directly, they made it clear that the path he has chosen to walk might prove dangerous to the peace that had been established all those years ago.

It is significant that both Macron and Merkel putatively separate and of their own accord delivered speeches in which themes like nationalism, isolationism and others currently

(31)

30

ascribed to the U.S. were discussed and discouraged. It was most likely not a coincidence that Macron and Merkel made sure to denounce nationalism shortly after Trump said about himself that he was a nationalist. Trump’s immediate and personal reaction against Macron further shows the U.S. president is aware that the criticism in the French president’s speech was directed towards him.

(32)

31

Conclusion

The past two years that trump has been president have not only been impactful within the United States, but also for the rest of the world. The change in foreign policy Trump brought was especially surprising for western allies, who had increasingly forged connections with the U.S. after World War 2. When Trump announced his America first policy to the world, it quickly became clear his domestic policy would heavily influence his foreign policy. This meant that on issues like trade and climate change Trump exchanged the tactics of cooperation and compromise for force and ultimatums. While Trump’s harsh stance on globalism pleased many of his voter base, it clashed with the European political structure and made several heads of state wary of Trump’s intentions. His aversion for globalism and the way he expressed this, issuing scathing remarks about other heads of state on multiple occasions, showed the disconnect between Trump’s way of politics and the European political environment. The case studies discussed in this paper showed this disconnect by focusing on the more personal interactions between Trump and European heads of state and the latter’s reactions to Trump’s foreign policy.

This paper has argued that Trump has largely been an anomaly when it comes to conduct in U.S. foreign policy. This was argued on the basis that Trump, unlike his predecessors, shows little regard for the established structure in which other states operate and instead prefers to rely on his own instincts and logic. This results in Trump ignoring the boundaries of the international political structure and increases his agency. The case studies have discussed several occasions when Trump’s agency had to contend with the European political structure. The G20 summit in Hamburg showed German Chancellor Merkel was clearly critical of Trump. However, in the end, Trump showed no sign of backing down from his promise to back out of the Paris agreement. Furthermore, U.K. prime minister May, in a meeting with Trump, was unable to secure anything worthwhile. While it was a bilateral

(33)

32

meeting, Trump clearly had the upper hand. This continued when Trump visited the U.K. in July 2018. Trump’s comments in the timely released Sun interview showed his lack of professional admiration for May, who chose not to largely ignore the interview and not call Trump out on his comments. However, it must not be forgotten that May was in an exceedingly difficult position due to Brexit. As her speech at the United Nations General Assembly showed, she was not unable to criticize Trump. Though it was indirect and lacked some of the condemnation present in Merkel’s speeches, it indicated May was not wholly politically immobilized by Trump’s agency. Arguably the strongest showing of critique towards the U.S. president came from French president Emmanuel Macron during his speech at the Arc de Triomphe on the centenary of the World War 1 armistice. Delivering direct criticism to Trump’s nationalism, Macron, as well as Merkel, showed the U.S. president that many in Europe do not blindly condone his actions, and that he should take care in how he proceeds, lest he wants to alienate his allies further.

This push back towards Trump and his policies is significant, as it shows that Europe can be more independent from the U.S. than Trump most likely believes. While the U.K. has been in a difficult situation since the start of Brexit, the continued condemnation of Trump’s actions by both Macron and Merkel show there is a strong front on the European mainland that is willing to not give in easily to Trump’s often bullying use of U.S. power. It is important for not only individual European states, and by extension also for the European Union, to show it can survive and thrive without the American help Trump thinks it needs. It must not give in to Trump’s influence and follow his path towards nationalism and anti-globalism. This trend of isolationism would only alienate allies from each other.

(34)

33

Bibliography

Asthana, Anushka. “Trump expects trade deal with UK to be completed 'very, very quickly'.” The Guardian, July 8, 2017.

may-in-bid-to-boost-post-brexit-trade-with-g20-meetings.

BBC News. “The G20 SUMMIT: Angela Merkel statement- BBC News.” Filmed [July 2017]. Duration 12:53. Posted [July 2017].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkJeImuoYCg.

CNN. “Transcript of Theresa May's speech to US Republicans.” January 27, 2017.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/theresa-may-us-speech-

transcript/index.html.

Commemoration of the centenary of the Armistice Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic Paris – 11. November 2018. Retrieved 28-12-2018.

https://onu.delegfrance.org/Emmanuel-Macron-s-speech-at-Commemoration-of-the- centenary-https://onu.delegfrance.org/Emmanuel-Macron-s-speech-at-Commemoration-of-the-Armistice.

Cummings, William. “'I am a nationalist': Trump's embrace of controversial label sparks uproar.” USA Today, November 12, 2018.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/24/trump-says-hes-nationalist-what-means-why-its-controversial/1748521002/.

Donald Trump, Twitter Post, November 9, 2018, 13:10 PM,

Dunn, Tom Newton. “TRUMP'S BREXIT BLAST Donald Trump told Theresa May how to do Brexit ‘but she wrecked it’ – and says the US trade deal is off.” The Sun, July 13, 2018. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6766531/trump-may-brexit-us-deal-off/.

(35)

34

Edwards, Jason A. "Make America Great Again: Donald Trump and Redefining the U.S. Role in the World." Communication Quarterly 66, no. 2 (2018): 176-95.

Glinavos, Ioannis. “Should Theresa May take Donald Trump’s advice and sue the EU over Brexit? A legal expert explains.” The Conversation, July 17, 2018.

the-eu-over-brexit-a-legal-expert-explains-100074

Global News. “FULL Donald Trump, Theresa May press conference.” Filmed [July 2018]. Duration 1:09:10. Posted [July, 2018].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxah3L3T_Lg.

Kaufman, Robert G. Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama's Grand Strategy Weakened America. University Press Of Kentucky, 2016.

Koh, Harold Hongju. The Trump Administration and International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 2019.

Lizza, Ryan. “The Consequentialist: How The Arab Spring Remade Obama’s Foreign Policy.” New Yorker, May 2, 2011.

consequentialist?currentPage=all.

Peterson, John. "Structure, Agency and Transatlantic Relations in the Trump Era." Journal of

European Integration 40, no. 5 (2018): 637-52.

Rengger, Nick. “Realism, Tragedy and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in International Political Thought.” In Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in

International Relations, edited by M. C. Williams. Oxford and New York:

(36)

35

Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G20 Dialogue Forum with Non

Governmental Organisations (C20) in Hamburg on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 2018. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/speech-by-federal- chancellor-angela-merkel-at-the-g20-dialogue-forum-with-non-governmental- organisations-c20-in-hamburg-on-19-june-2017-427264

Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the opening of the Paris Peace Forum on 11 November 2018. Retrieved 1-1-2019. https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-

en/news/speech-by-federal-chancellor-angela-merkel-at-the-opening-of-the-paris-peace-forum-on-11-november-2018-1549780

Stevenson, Chris and Stone, Jon. “Trump attacks Macron's call for EU army to defend against US as 'very insulting'.” November 9, 2018.

macron-france-europe-military-us-russia-china-defence-a8627176.html.

Stewart, Heather and Smith, David. “'Opposites attract': Theresa May signals strong relationship with Donald Trump.” The Guardian, January 27, 2017.

signals-strong-relationship-with-trump.

The Independent. Twitter Post. July 15, 2018, 11:07 AM.

https://twitter.com/independent/status/1018421739997614080.

Theresa May's speech to the UN General Assembly 2017. Retrieved 19-12-2018.

(37)

36

Trump, Donald. Twitter Post. November 13, 2018, 05:17 and 05:18.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1062333534214520832 and

Trump, Donald. Twitter Post. November 15, 2018, 12:59.

Watts, Jonathan and Connolly, Kate. “World leaders react after Trump rejects Paris climate deal.” The Guardian, June 2, 2017.

Personal politics: Donald Trump and the European political structure