The their plan to challenge the threat. The aim

The end of the Cold War is one of the most significant turning points in
the history of the world. The bipolar system of the world has ended after Cold
War and United States of America has become the influencer of the world
politics and economy. Since then the world has been into an era where USA
dominated the international politics as much as they can.


After the end of the Cold War, America’s foreign policy has changed from
the bottom. Before that it was all about containment and uniting the West Block
around the Soviet Union. With the end of the Cold War, there was nothing to
contain anymore. So their foreign policy changed deeply. Common view suggests
that USA had a general strategy during the Cold War but after the end of the
Cold War they couldn’t come up with a strategy like that. It is believed that
during the Cold War, Washington followed a strategy called “containment” which
was found by George Kennan. According to this strategy, USA had determined the
threat to challenge them and set up their agenda according to their plan to
challenge the threat. The aim of this strategy was to avoid a war and get rid
of the Soviet threat. With that, the American decision-maker system would place
around the world and manage the threat of Soviets without starting a war like
World War II where millions of people died. When Soviet threat had become a
threat large enough like Nazi Germany and Empire of Japan, containment strategy
was developed in the context of a solution. But after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, a new general strategy needed to be found. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


In common view USA could not developed a new general strategy or a foreign
policy vision after the Cold War. Washington seems to choose different
strategies for different events or crisis’s. 
In USA’s foreign policy, we can see the traces of an after-Cold War
strategy going back to the “Father Bush” period. Thus, we can see the
strategies in the documents of that period. However, the traditional view
suggests that United States had different strategies over the periods from
Father Bush to Clinton, from Clinton to Bush, from Bush to Obama. They all had
different agenda’s regarding United States’ foreign policy. After the Cold War,
they all pursued different strategies and visions. There may be a
differentiation of speech or rhetoric between the presidents, different ideas
of how to save America after the Cold War era. There may be presidents that
thought their ideas was completely unique and the previous presidents had it
all wrong regarding the foreign policy of the United States but after all every
president followed a similar strategy when looked to the overall. Washington’s
general strategy after the Cold War was consistent enough compared to the Cold
War era foreign policy. This strategy does not have a specific name like
“containment” but it has almost the same coherence as containment strategy. After
the Cold War American decision-makers had tried to prevent a situation where
another actor which would challenge the American supremacy on the economic and
martial fields, like another Cold War. To achieve that, United States tried to discourage
and block the possible challengers to the United States’ power. They uphold a
huge military power, giving the message to challengers that they won’t even
come close to US’s military capacity with increasing their military
spending.  In fact, the message was
clear. No sane country would ever try to challenge America with a military
presence that can’t even be balanced. So, in the future it would become obvious
that challenging America would be pointless.

In the presidency of Reagan, military spending was %26 of the world’s
total military spending. In the presidency of George W. Bush, it was %50 of the
total, meaning United States has spent exactly same as the rest of the world
combined.  Was the threat that USA faced
was less significant in 1986 then 2006? Clearly not. Military-wise, the rest of
the world has fallen behind USA this period. USA on the other hand, started
multiple oversea wars and enhanced their military presence on other countries.
Today, the military power difference is much larger between USA and other
countries relative to 1990. This difference is the outcome of a strategy called
“iron fist”.


United States has pursued its iron fist strategy with “silk glove”
approach. With “silk glove”, USA has interacted with the possible challenger
countries and provided some positions for them in the status quo. They provided
some countries positions which were over their economic and military capacity to
make them feel happy about the status quo and prevent them to act revisionist.
This strategy has ensured USA to preserve their status on the world arena. They
did not dictate their supremacy over others but instead they gave other actors
some roles on the arena. In the period of Obama silk glove strategy had been
used widely. While it could be in different perspectives, Trump administration
can have expected to be pursue the tendencies that started with the Obama
administration. The offshore balancing strategy which shaped in the Obama
administration suggests the limitation of USA’s engagement in different regions
and providing space to regional actors. The importance of this is that United
States would get rid of the unnecessary weight that has been left from the Cold
War era and producing the strategic flexibility to upcoming challenges in the
future. For the rest of the world, at least in the short term, this would mean
the recalibration politics’ effect of producing more risk is enhanced. In the
Middle East, the destruction of this strategy has increased to a level which
would harm the legacy of the Obama administration. Excluding Iran’s nuclear
program and supportive Israel approaches, Trump administration’s goal seems to
be offshore balancing the Middle East instead of playing the “world leader”
role. This suggestion could mean that this strategy could trigger or extend a
destructive security rivalry of regional actors in Middle East or in other
parts of the world.

Trump administration’s acts of interventionism and less isolationist
strategies could have backed up with their ideological ground. Although, his
personal background could cause his actions to be done by a pragmatic
economical perspective, Trump’s choices of the team for his foreign policy and
security produces an interesting position. It could be expected that Trump’s
foreign policy could provide an international relations that depends on a tough
stand by the choices of military-security bureaucracy which contains a team of
people with strong background. Beyond that, it is foreseen that certain people
on Trump’s cabinet has adopted the American Right’s problematic ideological
mind map and pursue politics that is supportive of Israel and some of the
members has certain ideas about the Islamic world. While the destructive shadow
of the intervention of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 and the global combat
with terrorism done by Neo-Conservatives is still fresh, the risk of pursuing
similar strategies con not be overseen. 


It necessary for Trump to prioritize United States’ specific economic
benefits. It is his purpose to re-negotiate the existing trade deals with
Asian, Pacific and European countries. It should be expected that Trump’s
isolationist approach in foreign policy to affect the global economy deeply.
Thus, Trump may lead a new nationalist wave in the base of economy. It wouldn’t
be necessary to call “Trumpism” to this global financial macro-change. United
States’ transformed global political leadership after the Cold War and 9/11
could again lead to a transformation. Trump can produce a new “populist mixture
“out of the ideas of the Democrats and the Republicans on US’ world role.
Meaning, United States could make more aggressive moves in the light of their
narrow national interests and the movement away from the “world police” role.  This era could represent the populism and
honesty in “making America great again” and decreasing liberal suggestions of
Western democracies. Losing its popularity with Obama’s failure in Arab spring,
United States could lead to a point where their democracy has no moral
supremacy and worse, won’t taking into consideration.


From his inauguration, it was public knowledge that Trump’s
understanding and priorities of foreign policy characteristics was
unpredictability and uncertainty. Right after he said NATO was unnecessary, he
turned and said NATO was “not that unnecessary”. In his voting campaign he
declared China as number one economic competitor but after being elected and
his first official visit to China he speaks in praise of China and he said he
understood the sensitivity of Taiwan issue. Similarly, he stated that he would
strengthen United States’ relations and cooperation with Russia but then
realized that the strategic rivalry and conflict between his country and Russia
was not as less as he thought, and he started to shift his approach into
Obama’s traditional realistic politics on Syria and Ukraine conflicts.  He declared an “America First” policy on his
country’s interests and said he would avoid any high cost military
intervention. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to bomb the military facilities
of Damascus Regime after the chemical weapon use of on oppositional groups. It
is undeniably important how Trump administration’s foreign policy will evolve.
In this context, it is necessary to declare what is understood by the
definition of New World Order. This definition has three fundamental elements.
First, the importance of the multisided economic relations based on free trade
market and its pursuit of mutual dependency an if possible, no barriers
blocking the trade. Secondly, in liberal world order security is defined by indivisibility
and win-win logic. It is important that organizations like United Nation, NATO
and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to ensure security in
liberal world order.


Trump looks suspiciously to the universality of freedom idea and
supporting democracies and he looks to foreign policy in a narrow frame of materialistic
nationalism. During his campaign, Trump underlined the wrongdoing in giving
lessons to other countries. But after elected he developed close relations with
the countries of which are obviously not adopted the liberal democratic values.
After glorifying the Sisi Regime in Egypt, he made his first ever official
visit to Saudi Arabia. The choice between values and interest, he clearly
chooses interests. His Foreign Affairs Minister, Tillerson made it very clear
in his speech to his own minister personnel.  Trump, not only supporting United Kingdom on
exiting European Union, he encourages the populist, anti-globalizationist,
extreme nationalists in Europe. Nonetheless, he insists on building the “wall”
on Mexican border, in contradiction to his open society ideas. Blocking the
visits from specific Muslim state citizens, he supports the idea of a
privileged White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP) identity.


Trump prefers to build bilateral relations with countries instead of
rule-based multilateral relations. He doesn’t want international organization
mechanisms to block the free movement of foreign policy. Instead, he believes
that United States’ interests would be best preserved with the two-sided deals
of trade and denies the multilateral trade deals with no hesitation. He
withdrew United States from Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership
and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, believing that these deals
benefit the other countries more than United States. Signifying protectionism
in economy, he argues for high taxes on borders and intimidates multinational
American corporations that keeps their production on other countries to
encourage domestic production. Denying European countries’ support on spreading
liberal order to the world, he insists on lessening United States’ support on
these countries security. When we examine Trump’s foreign policy, it is
suspicious that how long US will protect and preserve liberal world order under
their leadership. Trump looks the idea of US being the financer of liberal
order from a distance.


The structure of the international system, the own identities of every
country that United States have conversation with, non-state actors that have
their own goals and agenda’s and all of other factors similar to those will be
decisive on Trump’s approach of foreign policy.