It is just last month that the newly elected U.S. President, Donald Trump, was sown into power as the 45th President of the world’s most powerful country. Since time immemorial, the U.S. presidency has played a key role when it comes to international relationships. The latter best explains a situation whereby countries of different geographical and political temperatures came together to relate to different factors, mostly politics and economics. This is what the author, Matt Peterson, wants to highlight in the article “Ranked: International Relationships Trump’s Made Complicated.”
The basis of the article is to show the six relationships that have taken a dramatic change since Trump was elected president. Peterson discusses these relations in light of the promises Trump made during his campaign tours as well as how much he has already done while in office. Given this basis, I believe that the arguments presented are valid. This is because it is on the international news how the Trump legacy is likely to shape certain relationships that the U.S. has had in the past.
For instance, there is a reference to Russia. Since the beginning, it has been clear that Trump appears to have a more positive than a negative relationship with Russia, unlike his predecessors. To the rest of the world, America has not really seen eye to eye with Russia when it comes to geopolitical matters. This is mostly true in relation to the situation in Syria. However, just as explained by Peterson, Trump and Putin are likely to form a bond that will see them work together, especially in the war against ISIS. The issue of Syria is a sensitive topic that needs to be addressed with utmost responsibility. By showing interest to side with Putin over the matter, the U.S. can find itself in difficult territories given that the previous administration was against Putin’s interests in Syria. As such, Trump is definitely making most of the already existing relations the country has complicated by his viewpoint on specific issues.
I agree with Peterson on the point he brings out regarding economic changes, mostly for Japan and Mexico. The United States is a superpower in diverse ways, and this is inclusive of economic growth and influence. It is, therefore, true that Japan and Mexico stand to lose out under the Trump administration. Given the fact that Trump has threatened to build a wall with the Mexican border and that Japan can suffer some side effects given the direction Trump will take Peterson, there is the possibility that their economy might be damage. Mostly for Mexico, it depends so much on America such that forcing them to build a wall and locking them out can stunt their economic progress, thereby affecting thousands.
There is also the issue of dividing Muslims that the author has highlighted. The fight against terrorists has become a global concern, given how Peterson portrays the relationships Trump is establishing in regard to this; chances of this war being won easily may be far stretched. Therefore, I tend to agree that in as much as there is the possibility of Trump and Putin working together against ISIS, there is also the possibility of retaliation. Trump has made it clear that he is going to ban all Muslims from gaining access to the U.S. This brings out another aspect to the war; more people feeling disappointed with his actions. The author fails to mention how this stand has brought out people in large numbers to demonstrate against Trump and the possibility of strengthening terrorists because now they will have a solid argument to portray America as the enemy to the rest of the world.
One aspect that Peterson fails to mention to strengthen his arguments is Trump’s desire to deport Muslims and Africans from America. This he made clear throughout his campaign that when he becomes president, his administration is going to deport non-American citizens: a threat that he is starting to fulfill through the ban. America is a country of opportunities, and that is why people from different places migrate there for economic benefits. There are indeed people who are legally there, while others have illegally made their way to the country. It is the responsibility of immigration to look into this matter rather than the president declaring to deport everyone. Should this came to pass, the U.S. relationship with countries that will be affected can greatly suffer.
Peterson might also have compared the previous administration’s relationships with the ones Trump is likely to build. No specific presidential administration has indeed had the best relationship with every country, but there are a few key ones that Trump should have embraced. By demonstrating the difference and the potential growth or not that Trump’s administration is likely to have, Peterson would have strengthened his point of view. Basically, this should have allowed the reader to clearly see the problem areas and the potential consequences to follow.
President Donald Trump has to acknowledge that there are relationships he needs to maintain and improve on as the U.S. president. In the same breath, he has to understand that taking on certain administrative policies can portray the country in a bad light, thereby affecting its international relations and policies. There is a greater chance for the country to emerge victorious in certain relations while failing miserably in others. For a country such as the United States, the relationships it builds should be for the greater good of the global population because of its superpower status.
In conclusion, my personal reaction to the article is that there is more to agree with than to disagree. It is a new era for Americans and the rest of the world. Just as Peterson points out, some complications are bound to arise from how President Trump is going to conduct his administration. The allies America of today will benefit its future generations. The same can be said about the enemies it makes. As such, there is a need to hold the president accountable for his actions. It is in good spirit to address how presidents can potentially complicate relationships and thus highlighting areas of potential dangers. On the same wavelength, the article seeks to show how different leaders will have to re-adjust their strategies to accommodate the changes most likely to be brought about by Trump’s administration. The main goal of the article, as mentioned above, is to show the complication and, therefore, learning as much as possible of the future direction of both Trump and the other presidents.
Peterson, Matt. “Ranked: International Relationships Trump’s Made Complicated.” The Atlantic, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/ranked-trumps-relationships-with-world-leaders/514622/ Accessed 29 October 2020.