An Overview of the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy from 2017 to 2021 using Marxist-Leninist Analysis.
Trump’s previous administration had a very “America First” approach to foreign policy - opposing the former neo-liberal assumption of liberal international cooperativism. During Trump’s first year as president, he pulled out from the 2015 Paris Accord, claiming that “This agreement [Paris Agreement] is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.” [1] Trump then threatened to pull out of NATO multiple times throughout his administration, saying “‘Would you leave us if we don’t pay our bills?’ They hated my answer. I said, ‘Yeah, I would consider it.’ They hated the answer Michael Powell. But if I said, ‘No, I won’t leave you. I promise you we will always protect you.’ Then they will never pay their bills. So I said, ‘Yes, I will leave you.” [2]
These two examples demonstrate Trump’s attempts to galvanize his voter base around the feeling that the world is out to get them. However, these are not the only ways Trump acted as a disruptor in traditional American foreign policy. By recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel back in 2017, rejecting of the Iranian Nuclear Deal in 2018, and most infamously warming up relations with North Korea in 2019, Trump has continued to make chaos through his international relations.
On the other hand, the Trump administration continued to hold ideologically conservative positions on key foreign policies; such as the reintroduction of harsh draconian embargos on Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and China; the multibillion dollar arms deals with Saudi Arabia and other gulf states; and the targeting of leftist governments via economic pressure, such as pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, targeting Vietnam or the direct targeting of Lithium mines in Bolivia because of their nationalization.
The Ideological Underpinnings of “America First”
Trump’s pattern of repeatedly targeting nations with leftist or left-of-center governments, increasing arms sales, and rejecting free trade by itself does not necessarily conform to the ideological framework touted by Liberal and (Liberal) Conservative think tanks that make up “America First”. Rather, it is a pattern indicative of a decaying capitalist system. A system that would rather save its own dwindling profit margins through the violent expansion of the Military-Industrial-Complex and by increasing corporate influence in government, than allow the working class of any nation to seize the means of production.
Case 1: Arm Sales, the Big Three, the Military-Industrial-Complex, and how it Influences Governance
According to a Center for International Policy 2020 report titled The Trump Effect: Trends in Major Arms Sales in 2019, the Trump Administration claimed that the primary reason for its multibillion-dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia was to create more arms-related manufacturing jobs for Americans. To quote the report, “Based on actual deliveries of arms -- the best measure of how much money is actually flowing in any given year pursuant to current and past weapons offers -- U.S. jobs tied to Saudi arms deals likely numbered in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 jobs, or less than one-tenth of President Trump’s highest claims of employment tied to U.S. arms sales to the regime in Riyadh.” (Page 17) The report then goes on to say, “The exact value of U.S. offsets and coproduction agreements in any given year cannot be determined due to inadequate reporting procedures, but it is clear that they drain substantial numbers of jobs from the United States.” (Page 18)
So, if the arm sales drain large numbers of jobs from the US and drain the wallets of US taxpayers through the increasing number of Department of Defense contracts needed to replenish the Strategic Stockpile, why did the Trump, and by extension, the Biden Administration continue these arms deals? The answer is clear - the influence of the Military-Industrial-Complex in the Government.
According to Open Secrets, a Nonpartisan and nonprofit organization that is dedicated to tracking the money spent in US politics, the defense industry donated “$50 million to political candidates and committees during the 2020 campaign cycle,” With both Democrats and Republicans receiving large donations from companies like Lockhead Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon. The very same companies that stand to benefit the most out of these large and expensive arms deals. According to the same 2020 Center for International Policy report, “Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon – were involved in over $59 billion worth of arms deals in 2019, over two-thirds of total offers by the Trump administration.” (Page 16)
So how much did the Big Three stand to earn during the Trump administration? According to Macrotrends.net, Raytheon’s combined annual revenue from 2017 to 2021 was 260.862 billion USD, Lockheed Martin’s combined annual revenue from 2017 to 2021 was 295.975 billion USD, and Boeing’s combined annual revenue from 2017 to 2021 was a whopping 392.135 billion USD, making a very profitable presidential cycle for these defense companies.
These big defense cartels sink millions of dollars into SuperPACs and PACs in order to influence the outcomes of elections, and make sure the administrations elected will be favorable to them. This in turn pushes each subsequent administration to outdo their “political rivals” in terms of military expenditure so they can keep earning their blood money, making sure that no matter who is in charge, Democrat or Republican, the big cartel of defense contractors and weapons manufacturers will continue to get a sufficient return of investment.
This is why the idea of an “America First” framework falls apart - the financial incentives of the defense cartels solely rest on controlling the “liberal” electoral process to expand their profit margins, which explains the increasing military budget, increased arm sales, and use of American Soft power to threaten European nations in NATO to increase their military budgets. It’s all to increase the profits of rapidly consolidating consortiums of capital interests aligned with Oil and energy. These policies are not “America First,” but rather “American Capital Interest First.”
Summary
The Trump administration's foreign policy, often described by its “America First” policies represents a shift away from traditional Neo-Liberal diplomatic norms and an embrace of a more confrontational and “preservation of capital” posture. These changes are best shown through its prioritization of corporate interests, particularly those of the military-industrial complex, over genuine national security or global cooperation. Key actions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Accord and the Iranian Nuclear Deal, as well as significant arms sales to allied nations, illustrate a foreign policy driven more by profit motives than by any coherent strategy for sustainable international relations.
The administration’s consistent targeting of leftist governments and its willingness to impose economic sanctions reflects an ideological stance that seeks to maintain U.S. hegemony at the expense of periphery nations. Furthermore, the evidence of substantial financial influence wielded by defense contractors within American politics highlights the present meshing of political and corporate interests that undermine the supposed “liberal Democracy” of the United States, thus proving that the notion of “America First” is itself a veneer for advancing American Capital Interest.
Comments
Post a Comment