By mixing isolationism and imperialism, Trump attempts the “shock strategy”

On January 6, President-elect Donald Trump deliberately sought to throw America's Western allies into panic. His foreign policy speech has indeed multiplied provocative declarations: inclusion of Canada as 51^e State, acquisition of Greenland (Danish territory), resumption of control of the Panama Canal, injunction for NATO member states to increase their defense effort to 5%, end of support for Ukraine, etc.

A few days before the swearing-in on the 45th^e et 47^e American president, panic must give way to consideration of a dilemma. Should Europeans prepare for a new American imperialism in the West, or should they put these resounding declarations down to a compulsive tendency to provocation? As for the Chinese and Russian rivals, should they see this as a justification for their respective revisionisms? The European Union runs two symmetrical risks: exaggerating the seriousness of these projects and triggering a rescue effort, or minimizing their scope and appearing weak.

Trump II, the new Theodore Roosevelt?

Everything about what is now called the “Mar-a-Lago Doctrine” is designed to catch players in Western geopolitics off guard. In Washington, Democratic opponents, «cold warriors» Republicans and geopoliticians can no longer continue to place the Trump II administration in the American isolationist tradition, illustrated by Presidents George Washington and James Monroe at the turn of the 19th century.^e century.

The almost president endorsed an external interventionism which was the prerogative of the Republican neoconservatives, generally not very Trumpist, and the “booted” Wilsonian Democrats. In Brussels, he surprised those who expected an American withdrawal from Europe and a transactional approach to international issues: American foreign policy is openly revisionist in the sense that it considers that borders are no longer intangible, including those of the allies.

In Ottawa and Panama City, he shocked people with his assertive imperialism aimed at adding states and dominions to his country. We knew that Donald Trump was breaking with Wilsonianism concerned with international law, multilateralism, and respect for the right of peoples to self-determination. We discover that he takes up projects from Theodore Roosevelt, president from 1901 to 1909, with an impressive record in terms of military intervention in Latin America (Cuba, Venezuela, Dominican Republic) and in Asia (Philippines).

Like the resigning Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Western allies in general and European partners in particular must take seriously this announced change of course in relations with them. The Trump II administration is no longer seeking “deals” in the form of compromises advantageous to the United States. She projects success at the expense of her allies. Or, at least, she announces it.

Eyes and hands

The excess of these declarations can have a paradoxically reassuring effect on European allies. Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, downplayed the significance of this speech. She recalled that many Trumpian threats had never been followed up on: the United States therefore did not leave NATO.

American allies have some reason to believe that this “Mar-a-Lago doctrine” is a series of verbal provocations, deliberately delivered before the swearing-in, to establish a balance of power favorable to the United States before entry. in negotiation in the form of a showdown. In short, it would be less of a program than a list of maximalist demands intended to dictate the terms of internal discussions at NATO before actually taking office.

This rather sobering view is also supported by the consoling thought that the United States needs disciplined allies in its confrontation with the People's Republic of China. In short, it would be appropriate to distinguish between the appearances that the eyes see and the realities that the hands feel, as Machiavelli recommended.

Keep your cool

Donald Trump deliberately mixes two American geopolitical traditions: transactional isolationism and revisionist imperialism. Its goal is to stupefy its allies, focus their attention and disorient them. In other words, it is the “shock strategy”.

His “Mar-a-Lago doctrine” is much more than a bluff, because it attests to a dominating relationship with allies reduced to the role of auxiliary clients. If the European Union continues to downplay the Trump II risk, in the name of coolness in the face of provocation and the transatlantic alliance, it simply risks appearing vulnerable in Washington. On the other hand, if Europeans give in to panic in the face of American imperium, they risk approaching the transatlantic standoff in a dispersed order: there are many states (Poland, Baltic countries, Germany, Italy) whose geopolitical tradition is focused on a “privileged relationship” with the American ally.

For the next four years, composure will be necessary, because the Trump II administration will multiply provocative media storms to lose allies in the realm of uncertainty, monopolize the international scene and divide Europeans. But a large dose of vigilance will also be essential, because the interests of Europeans will only ever be defended by Europeans. Between theimperator and the deal makerDonald Trump has not yet chosen. But he wants to make his allies his painkillers.