“… In short, one of the more enduring and powerful theories of world politics suggests that Trump’s radical approach to foreign policy is going to backfire. He may win a few concessions in the short term, but the long-term results will be greater global resistance and new opportunities for America’s rivals.
Here’s where the theory of collective goods kicks in, however, and it points in the other direction.
Taming American power requires coordinated action and a willingness to bear the costs of opposition. Getting other states to line up against Trump will take time, and some governments will be tempted to free-ride and hope that somebody else does the heavy lifting. Under these conditions, the United States can play divide-and-conquer and try to peel some states away by offering individual concessions.
The difficulty of organizing a balancing coalition should not be underestimated—especially for countries whose political systems are themselves under strain—and that’s undoubtedly what Trump is counting on.
But note: Keeping the world “
off-balance” requires the selective use of U.S. power and a considerable amount of self-restraint. It means not looking for every opportunity to humiliate weaker countries or their leaders.
Other countries must be convinced Washington will keep its promises and that cutting a deal or making a concession won’t simply invite new demands.
Unfortunately, exercising restraint, keeping promises, and treating others with respect have never been part of Trump’s playbook, and the marginally competent people he’s appointed while he guts the ranks of the civil service make it even less likely that U.S. foreign policy will be conducted with finesse.
Nobody doubts that the United States has a mailed fist, but we are about to discover what happens when the velvet glove is removed.
As realists have warned for decades, and as a parade of past aggressors reminds us, states that use big-stick diplomacy to browbeat and punish others eventually overcome any initial reluctance to balance and the obstacles to collective action and end up with fewer friends, more enemies, and far less influence.
I wouldn’t have thought it possible for the United States to permanently alienate its closest neighbors and many long-standing partners, but that is precisely where we are now headed. …”
