Don Trump, United States and Trump discussed on Monocle 24: The Big Interview


In the United States right now, a sixth of young people are prepared to admit to a pollster, which means the numbers probably a lot higher that they would rather have military leadership in the US than a democracy. And the only reason they would say that is because they think they don't live in MARCY. They think the system is rigged against them and if we don't fix that, if we don't, I I, that as the problem, I am just not willing to stand up with everyone else and say, Trump is the problem, Ian Bremmer. The president and founder of Eurasia group is perhaps the world's leading global political risk consultant and a US foreign policy expert. Bremmer grew up in neighborhoods just outside Boston, Massachusetts, and went on to a doctorate from Stanford University. Becoming the youngest ever national fellow at the Hoover Institution and the creator of Wall Street's first ever global political risk index. His books include every nation for it self. The end of the free market superpower and his latest versus them. The failure of globalism. I'm Tom Edwards, and I'm delighted to say in Bremmer joins me today on the big interview. In Burma. Great to have you with us. Thanks for coming to see us bags, narcissists you on the big interview. Let me just all about she asking you about something. I think you tweeted about or sort of made public sweet and this was a remark about the Nobel peace prize and potential recipients and you suggested, I think, well, I don't know an unlikely selection of winners given recent events in and around the Korean peninsula. Tell me about that. Well, the South Korean president said it after I did. So I'm glad he's following the tweets. It's good. It's good. It's an open form. I said that I believe that if they were able to get a peace deal done, not denuclearization just a peace deal between south and North Korea that I think that first of all Trump deserves credit for it, and Secondly, that he and she should ping and president park and Kim Jong UN deserve the Nobel the four of them. And the funny thing is that the response to that was overwhelmingly negative. About Trump almost no one had a problem with the idea that the leader of the world's largest human concentration camp. Kim Jong Hoon would be getting a Nobel, but my God, the idea that Trump could get one is just a bridge too far. Tells you something. This is what I find funny about Trump is this a case of doing good politics almost inadvertently or because he follows his instincts which we know themselves on predictable, changeable, that he's going to get some things right? Some of the time I should, we allow that to bother us. If we look something that alternately may be has opposed of impacts three components. One is he is unpredictable and likes that and thinks that that is a negotiating advantage, and it is a risk acceptance strategy, but it occasionally, especially since the United States is the biggest Power out there. It leads to outcomes that can be more positive. So for example, with South Korea, he pushed the South Koreans. Around and he got a better trade deal. Then you know bomb God with the South Koreans that occasionally can work. Second point is that the Trump administration is not just Trump and Nikki Haley. He's been incredibly effective as investors United Nations. I speak with Antonio Gutierrez the sector general lot, and he has enormous amount of time for her despite the fact they don't agree on every issue thinks she's been very effective. And so the other ambassadors and she has been able to work hard in getting the Chinese on board for tougher unanimous US lead multilateral sanctions at the United nation Security Council against China. And I also thought that Trump was much more focused on the North Korea shoe than previous administrations have. And some of that is because he thought that it was one that he could fix, but some of it is because he wanted to history. No one met with Kim Jong-Un from day one. He's like, well, maybe I'll meet with Kim Jong. He just he saw the opening. So. So I mean, you can say it was inadvertent, but surely it kinda was the strategy. And the thing is so you look at Obama when I look at the eight years of my writing and speaking about Obama and foreign policy, which is the focus on, I'd say I was probably sixty forty negative about Obama. When you look at the grand sweep, you look at Russia, could Syria look at Ron. You look at TPP Asia, pivot, all of it together probably sixty forty and everyone's fine with that. I would say on Trump if you look at everything I have done in said on Trump in the last fifteen sixteen months, I've been ninety ten negative on Trump foreign policy. And yet the ten percent that I've been positive, there's been extrordinary blowback because people just can't handle you saying literally anything good about Don Trump and just on that point about US foreign policy. People saying, you know, Trump could be doing despite these successes. Damage. The could be irreparable from the United States point of view, soft Power, hard Power, heavy, quantify it. Do you think there's some truth to that or do we just have to accept the you have personalities, these things change the personnel change, and it's cyclical perhaps, but not necessarily permanent. Most of the damage that has been done to US soft and hard Power in the world has been getting done over the past decades and structural. The biggest piece was probably win. The United States defeated the Soviets in the Cold War, and we decided or even did not decide because I don't think anyone's really thinking about it, not to build them up and integrate them in the US led system. No, Marshall plan. Basically tough Russians will do NATO enlargement, you know, we'll make life good for those around you. But for years of, here's some shock therapy and go have party. That was the beginning of the end of US. Global leadership in my view, and we could have done a much better job and I can give you lots of other examples, Afghanistan Iraq. You know that right Trump comes in. It's already clear that the Chinese are playing a much bigger role than they used to. It's already clear that the Europeans are not really as the line with us. They used to you guys, Bobby done Brexit at that point, but voted for Brexit, certainly not done Brexit, and then Trump comes in and he's pushing on an open door and he certainly has made the unwind of US hard and soft Power globally more extreme and precipitous than it had been under previous presidents. But it was moving in that direction very clearly wants this point about, I'm winding OC written before in previous books about the, I guess, the kind of vacuum in terms of global leadership. And I suppose the US remains really the only Power. Presently, the has both occurred, have the willingness and the resources to be a global leader. Where are we in terms of that process? How old conceiving is anyone who could break into it? Do you think we could see. The domestic political will in a market like the US to retake some of that global leadership or is that the thing that's changed for the there will be a new, a new global order. The US can choose to what degree we want to be involved in helping to shape that order and being a part of that order. But we cannot recreate Pax Americana that is gone forever. If you ask where we are right now, it's different because the Chinese today are an economic superpower. The Chinese today are technological superpower, but they are not a military or diplomatic superpower, and so it's very hybrid, their willingness to try to play a big role in the world has grown immensely in the last fifteen months. Since Trump has been elected, that's been a very big deal and she's paying his president for life. Certainly as a part of that one belt one road is a really big part of that, but it's important to recognize that China's increasing. Her ship role globally is not a, we China want to be in the position that America used to be in. We want to usurp them as the leader of all these global instiutions nano the Chinese wish to build their own competing architecture that should be deeply worrying for those of us in the west that liked a

Coming up next