Towards Which Global Order with the Trump Administration?

The behavior and approach of the Trump administration is notable and unprecedented in several respects, particularly regarding international treaties and agreements. It is unprecedented for a U.S. government to withdraw from multiple international treaties and agreements in a short period. Reactions to this approach have varied. The Treaty of Amity from 1955 between Iran and the U.S. had been violated numerous times, especially by Iran, over the 40 years following the revolution, yet both countries referenced it in international disputes against each other. However, on Wednesday, October 3, following the ruling of the International Court of Justice criticizing and rejecting some of the U.S. sanctions against Iran based on this treaty, the Trump administration finalized its stance by announcing its withdrawal from the treaty. Simultaneously, it was announced that the United States would also withdraw from the Optional Protocol regarding the compulsory settlement of disputes under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Palestinians had filed a complaint against the U.S. in the International Court based on this protocol due to the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. With the U.S. withdrawal from the mentioned protocol, the possibility of examining the Palestinian complaint is effectively nullified. Under international law, any country can terminate bilateral or multilateral treaties and agreements, with or without penalties and legal consequences. The U.S. has not been exempt from such terminations and withdrawals in its international relations history. The institutional international order established after World War II is largely defined in the West based on values such as multilateralism, human rights, and rule of law, along with acceptance of arbitration by international bodies. Washington's approaches and policies over the past 80 years have not been free from circumventing these standards, but this trend has taken on unprecedented dimensions during Donald Trump's presidency. Ronald Reagan made intensive efforts to distance himself from the human rights policies of the Carter era. He refrained from signing the International Convention on the Law of the Sea, nullified the U.S. commitment to the rulings of the International Court of Justice, refused to pay dues to the United Nations, and decided to withdraw from UNESCO. George W. Bush also withdrew the U.S. from the International Criminal Court charter, deemed the rulings of the International Court of Justice invalid for the U.S. in some areas, waged war against Iraq bypassing the United Nations, terminated the treaty limiting the missile defense shield with the Soviet Union, and declared adherence to the Geneva Convention regarding treatment of prisoners and detainees irrelevant for members of Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo detainees. These decisions and approaches raised the question of whether the U.S. is committed to its obligations regarding international law or only accepts and implements them when they align perfectly with its interests. However, despite severe internal criticisms of these decisions, which partially led to reforms and adjustments either at that time or during the subsequent presidency, and despite the general adherence of the U.S. to other international commitments, doubts about Washington's commitment to maintaining an order that was shaped more or less according to U.S. wishes and interests at the end of World War II did not arise significantly. In other words, Washington has, overall, adhered to the historical principle regarding public and private contracts, namely pacta sunt servanda (contracts must be observed), and the power of law (even if imperfect and unjust) has acted in many areas beyond the law of force and power. However, since the beginning of 2017, when Donald Trump became the President of the United States, the governance style in the White House and the behavior and approach towards international commitments and interactions have changed in an unprecedented and unconventional manner. Trump is the first president to have turned Twitter into his communication channel with America and the world, and the messages he sends every morning through this medium are often unpredictable and outside the norms and traditions of global leaders and American presidents. In these messages, he attacks his domestic opponents, creates titles for them, takes positions on foreign policy, and often announces positions he has not discussed with his advisors. This behavior and approach of the 45th President of the United States, alongside the unprecedented cancellation of some domestic and international regulations and treaties during his two years in office, has created a completely different image of politics and policymaking in America, increasing global unpredictability and doubt in anticipation of a recognized and conventional behavior from the White House. In Iran, this approach and behavior of the Trump administration may be primarily highlighted by the withdrawal from the JCPOA or his recent decision to cancel the 1955 treaty, in which Iran has also played a partial role. However, this is a general and dominant trend in the current U.S. administration's policy, which goes beyond the impact of globalization and relates to more specific factors. Trump's personal understanding and experience, which effectively does not distinguish between international relations and treaties and the norms and criteria prevalent in purely commercial transactions, and at the same time seeks to present a different and unconventional image of himself among American presidents, is one of these major factors. His controversial statement at the United Nations that 'his administration has achieved more in less than two years than any other administration in U.S. history' symbolizes this eagerness and desire. Additionally, the removal and dismissal of many advisors and ministers inclined towards interaction and coordination with U.S. allies in the international arena, the pessimistic outlook of newer advisors and Trump's social base towards multilateralism and international institutions, and their emphasis on the necessity of using America's power to maximize its interests also significantly influence this approach of the White House towards international relations and treaties. Trump is also unmatched among American presidents in appointing inexperienced family members to his advisory positions. Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump's daughter, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, play a significant role as official advisors in the White House, including in international issues in Trump's decision-making. The Trump administration's record regarding the cancellation or insistence on changing international treaties and agreements includes the following cases, in which Washington has not necessarily been in an unjust position in all of them, but the nature of the behavior for reforming or canceling them and the multitude of other cases that have been done solely for maximizing its own or its allies' interests have sparked controversy: • Retracting the Obama administration's signature to join the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel consumption play a minimal role in negative climate changes and global warming, and thus the U.S. will not accept any commitment to reduce greenhouse gases that would hinder the extraction and use of fossil energy from this country. • Refusing to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, arguing that it does not serve U.S. economic interests and job creation in the country. • Threatening to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada, which had been in existence for 23 years, ultimately forcing Mexico and Canada to accept changes to the agreement. • Exiting the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) with Iran, arguing that this agreement does not completely close Iran's access to nuclear weapons and has no impact on its regional behavior and missile policies. • Withdrawing from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in protest against what Washington called the agency's 'anti-Israeli bias.' • Recognizing Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as the capital of Israel and relocating the U.S. embassy to this city. Although this action is claimed to comply with a 1995 congressional resolution and to conform to existing realities, UN resolutions and several agreements between Palestinians and Israelis stipulate that the fate of Jerusalem depends on the parties' agreements in peace negotiations. • Exiting the United Nations Human Rights Council in protest that this body 'does not act in accordance with its name,' 'often holds anti-Israeli positions,' and 'some countries that violate human rights, such as China, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, are members of it.' • Withdrawing from UNRWA, the agency for Palestinian refugees. Since Harry Truman (the 33rd President of the United States), the U.S. has funded UNRWA, but the Trump administration has threatened to cut this funding since taking office. The argument is that this aid does not serve the interests of American taxpayers and does not contribute to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. • Numerous criticisms regarding NATO's imposed costs on the U.S. and also support for Brexit (Britain's exit from the European Union) or unprecedented expressions of satisfaction with the rise of populist right-wing movements in some Western countries. • Threatening judges of the International Criminal Court with sanctions and pushing the Security Council to impose restrictions on this court if it attempts to initiate cases regarding potential war crimes by the U.S. in Afghanistan. • Exiting the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran. • Exiting the Optional Protocol regarding the compulsory settlement of diplomatic disputes under the 1961 Vienna Convention. • ... Overall, critics consider at least some of these actions as a unilateral approach that leads to increased distrust in international agreements and the functioning of various legal institutions and regimes, exacerbates chaos and unilateral and arbitrary behaviors in the international arena, and jeopardizes any successful management of immediate and long-term crises that require interaction and mutual trust. Reactions to this U.S. approach are not uniform. Some circles and countries view the situation as reminiscent of the Reagan and George W. Bush eras and hope that with Trump's departure from the White House and the resurgence of tendencies towards a relative revival of values based on international law, multilateralism, and arbitration by international bodies among elites and within American society, the current policies and approaches of Washington will also be moderated and revived. However, some circles and countries see the matter as more fundamental and interpret isolationism, withdrawal from multilateralism, the implementation of severe economic protectionist policies, and Trump's confrontational stance against globalization as a reaction to the end of the bipolar world and a response to aspects of globalization that have led to the emergence of various economic and political poles and significant demographic, cultural, and economic shifts in the world, limiting the scope of American power despite its continued dominance in many areas. In response to U.S. approaches, these countries emphasize either the necessity of preserving and protecting international regimes and treaties and keeping relevant institutions active (strengthening and expanding the United Nations Security Council, the World Trade Organization, legal bodies, and other international and regional institutions) or pursuing the creation of parallel institutions that reduce political, economic, and security dependence on the U.S., such as the efforts by Europe, China, and Russia to find alternatives to the dollar in international transactions or the EU's push to create its own military institution and reduce dependence on NATO. Overall, the fluid situation that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the intensification of globalization trends in international relations has taken on a relatively new quality during Trump's era, without a clear and defined outlook on the dimensions and nature of a new order in the near future amid the rise of powerful international actors. The behavior and approach of the Trump administration are both largely a result of this situation and a factor that exacerbates it.