President-elect Trump has created a fair amount of controversy regarding his foreign policy proposals (or lack thereof, depending on who you ask). Some people have argued that Trump does not have any specific stance, and some people have argued that Trump would start a chain of events leading to the demise of humanity. However, many of his foreign policy statements might contain some merit, or some of the statements may at least contain connections to some theories and hypotheses. This paper will examine a few of President-elect Trump’s most prolific foreign policy statements and categorize them into different schools of thought. The goal of this paper is not to influence one’s political preference one way or another, but to provide a relatively
…show more content…
It is largely liberal due to the idea of collaborative effort (Drezner 51). However, it also dips a toe into the realist perspective due to the implication of military intervention. Similar to the previously mentioned proposal, this proposal uses compulsory power, but it can also imply the use of institutional power. To paraphrase Barnett and Duvall’s words, institutional power is the ability to influence the actions of others through institutions (Barnett and Duval 51-52). In other words, there is a chance that Trump could use institutions such as the United Nations to exert power while simultaneously exerting pressure against …show more content…
There was previously speculation that Trump was against nuclear proliferation, or that he was arguing for it. Finally, Trump made a definitive statement on his stance on the subject, arguing that most states will eventually have nuclear weapon capabilities, and that it would not make sense for the United States to work against such a process. Trump further argues that it would be beneficial for states such as Japan to have nuclear weapons so that they may defend themselves from states such as North Korea (Mehta). This seems to share similarities with arguments for Iran to become a nuclear power. Like Trump, these scholars argue that the United States should not act as a world police on nuclear proliferation, and that allowing for more nuclear capabilities would promote stabilization and perhaps more security
It is largely liberal due to the idea of collaborative effort (Drezner 51). However, it also dips a toe into the realist perspective due to the implication of military intervention. Similar to the previously mentioned proposal, this proposal uses compulsory power, but it can also imply the use of institutional power. To paraphrase Barnett and Duvall’s words, institutional power is the ability to influence the actions of others through institutions (Barnett and Duval 51-52). In other words, there is a chance that Trump could use institutions such as the United Nations to exert power while simultaneously exerting pressure against …show more content…
There was previously speculation that Trump was against nuclear proliferation, or that he was arguing for it. Finally, Trump made a definitive statement on his stance on the subject, arguing that most states will eventually have nuclear weapon capabilities, and that it would not make sense for the United States to work against such a process. Trump further argues that it would be beneficial for states such as Japan to have nuclear weapons so that they may defend themselves from states such as North Korea (Mehta). This seems to share similarities with arguments for Iran to become a nuclear power. Like Trump, these scholars argue that the United States should not act as a world police on nuclear proliferation, and that allowing for more nuclear capabilities would promote stabilization and perhaps more security