Typical incoherence: Trump likes to pit appointees against one another so that his own position stays safe and only he has the final say, says the writer. — Reuters
THE dust hardly settles following a Trump presidential election, win or lose, before the next electoral dust-up.
The stakes are so high and the passions so intense that the anxieties cannot subside after just one election cycle. Normal expectations cannot apply when normalcy itself is often in question.
In 2016, Donald Trump won unexpectedly to the shock of the US mainstream media commentariat. They immediately turned up the heat on him until inauguration day in January 2017, then raised their disparaging tone again for four solid years.
Democratic Party lawmakers for their part repeatedly tried to hobble Trump’s fledgling administration by blocking his nominees. General Mike Flynn as National Security Adviser (NSA) was among the early casualties.
The same is happening now. Unlike before, Trump has done some pre-planning with a handier list of tentative appointees.
But Democratic Party Senator Richard Blumenthal is already targeting Tesla cum SpaceX boss Elon Musk for his “China ties.” For Blumenthal, Tesla’s rivalry with Chinese electric vehicle companies somehow means benefiting China.
Apple’s Tim Cook is similarly targeted. While Tesla and Apple are doing business in China for the benefit of their respective US corporations, Blumenthal sees only a win for China at great US expense.
Also targeted is former Democratic Party Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who as Lt-Col had served earlier as a Gulf War veteran. She resigned from the party, disgusted at how it had been hijacked by neo-conservative warmongers and politically correct extremists.
She switched to endorsing Trump and his antiwar pledges, openly condemning the military-industrial complex and its perpetual war mania. Trump named her Director of National Intelligence (DNI)-designate, the would-be link between all 17 US national security agencies and the President.
Naturally, sizeable pro-war segments of both Democratic and Republican parties hope to torpedo her prospects before confirmation. Among them is former NSA John Bolton, a neo-conservative advocate of several wars who insists on thoroughly vetting Gabbard and vetoing her appointment.
A “liberal” CNN interviewed the far-right Bolton about nominee Gabbard, using his controversial yardsticks as a credible frame of reference. It was like asking the big bad wolf to assess Little Red Riding Hood and going with that assessment as a norm.
For many observers, some nominees appear at odds with Trump’s promises of war avoidance. Several candidates seem incompatible or contradictory in messaging and purpose.
Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio is a known hawk on Hamas, Iran, Russia and China. Defence Secretary-designate Pete Hesgeth and NSA-designate Mike Waltz share his views.
This apparently incoherent line-up may also be typical. Trump likes to pit appointees against one another so that his own position stays safe and only he has the final say.
So while Trump and Vice-President-elect JD Vance who together share a war wariness balance Rubio and Hesgeth, Gabbard balances Waltz.
This can be particularly helpful in dealing with foreign competitors. Trump already sounds confident in fruitfully engaging Chinese President Xi Jinping soon.
He has no doubt Xi will accept a new deal on trade. Surrounded by and compared with hawks like Rubio, Trump emerges favourably as the “good cop” to their “bad cop.”
The hawks themselves will know better than to venture too far on their own, even if they have themselves as company. Trump’s acrimonious fallout with Bolton over China is a sobering lesson to all.
Bolton was pressing Trump to get much tougher with China, referencing human rights concerns over Beijing’s alleged excesses from Xinjiang and Hong Kong to Tibet and Tienanmen Square 1989. But since Trump had just offered China a deal and was hoping for a positive response, he first ignored Bolton and then fired him.
Hawks in Trump’s team need to muzzle their own desires or else chafe on a short leash. That all power courses through Trump and Trump alone befits his personality, and will no doubt impress foreign leaders he bargains with.
Co-opting some hawks onto his team also avoids their teaming up with Democrats in the Senate to frustrate his policymaking. Trump 2.0 has learnt some lessons from Trump 1.0.
But will Trump remain indifferent to Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs), regular summaries compiled from US intelligence agencies and presented by the DNI? Although Trump 1.0 saw little value in repetitious daily reports because he trusted his own instincts more, having an ally like Gabbard as DNI can spark new interest.
Trump is adamant that the Ukraine war be stopped and no new wars be initiated. What exactly to do about Gaza-Israel, Iran and China tend to be more nuanced.
Xi has said he is ready to work with Trump 2.0. That could mean meeting Trump halfway while allowing him to take credit for joint achievements.
None of that should be beyond China’s capacity to deliver. A reset in relations makes it all eminently worthwhile.
Bunn Nagara is Director and Senior Fellow of BRI Caucus for Asia-Pacific, and Honorary Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely the writer's own.
