Trump 2.0: Return to Chaos or Unlikely Harbinger of Stability?

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential election has ushered in a wave of both anxiety and cautious optimism across the globe. The unpredictable disruptor, whose first term saw sharp shifts in American foreign policy, now enters the White House once again at a time of acute geopolitical fragility. So, what does ‘Trump 2.0’ mean for the world?

While Trump’s first term was defined by his ‘America First’ doctrine - emphasizing economic nationalism, scepticism towards multilateralism, and an often-erratic foreign policy - his return has an ambitious shopping list that includes resolving the Israel-Hamas conflict in West Asia, ending the Russia-Ukraine war, and recalibrating relations with key European allies, especially Germany and NATO. However, this time, the South China Sea and Southeast Asia will play pivotal roles in shaping Trump’s international strategy, making his second term just as much about the East as it is about the West.

One of Trump’s most audacious claims during his first term was his unprecedented shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy—most notably, the Abraham Accords, which saw the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab nations. These agreements were hailed as a breakthrough, with Trump positioning himself as a peacemaker in a region long embroiled in conflict.

However, the current Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza has been a persistent reminder that lasting peace in the Middle East remains elusive. Trump has suggested that he would leverage his “personal relationships” with world leaders to broker a peace deal that would not only secure Israel’s security but also address Palestinian grievances. While his approach could focus on pressuring Hamas or offering new incentives for Palestinian leadership to engage, the reality is that achieving a lasting peace in West Asia will require much more than Trump’s personal brand of diplomacy.

The ongoing Ukrainian war poses a critical test for Trump’s foreign policy. While his first term focused on ending “endless wars,” winning support from his base but unsettling European allies, his unpredictability could either lead to a rapid U.S. withdrawal or a push for a negotiated settlement, potentially sacrificing territorial concessions.

Trump’s rapport with Putin will obviously hold the key. As late British PM Harold Macmillan famously said “jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” For Putin, the reverse has held true thus far. Can Trump influence Vlad over Ukraine?

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was quick to congratulate Trump on his victory, expressing hopes that the new administration could bring about a “just peace” in Ukraine. However, within Ukrainian circles, there are growing concerns about Trump’s future stance. Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has made it clear that he does not prioritize Ukraine’s fate. On the campaign trail, Trump boasted that he could end the war quickly, though how he intends to do so remains unclear.

However, it is likely that Trump’s support for Ukraine will come with conditions. Reports suggest that the Trump administration may demand significant territorial concessions from Ukraine in exchange for continued U.S. aid, potentially undermining the very goals that Kyiv is fighting for. These moves could put European allies in a difficult position, torn between upholding commitments to NATO and finding a path to peace with an unpredictable U.S. leader.

In Europe, Trump’s second term was met with mixed reactions, blending apprehension with some hints of approval. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz held talks, preparing for what they called the “new context” that would redefine transatlantic relations. The most immediate concern for European leaders is how Trump’s policies will influence Vladimir Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine, as the U.S. and the Biden administration has been a cornerstone of Ukraine’s defence against Russia.

Given Trump’s earlier statements suggesting a potential shift in U.S. support for Kyiv, both Macron and Scholz have expressed wariness over the future of NATO’s role in the region.

Trump’s first term was marked by an abrasive relationship with many European leaders, most notably Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. His criticism of NATO, demands for greater defence spending from European allies, and questioning of long-standing trade relationships underscored his broader scepticism of multilateral institutions. His has long stressed that the U.S. should not bear the financial burden of defending Europe and that allies should pay their fair share. While this stance resonated with many Americans who felt their country was shouldering an unfair burden, it strained relationships with Europe, with concerns that Trump’s policies would weaken NATO and erode the international rules-based order. Business titans from Europe have raised alarms about the potential economic fallout, particularly for Germany, the EU’s largest economy, which relies heavily on both U.S. trade relations and European cohesion.

Germany, in particular, is entering a rocky period of acute political crisis. Scholz’s government has been buffeted by the collapse of the three-party coalition, further exacerbating the country’s economic struggles. The economic volatility in Germany, alongside the looming Trump presidency, is a perfect storm for the European Union. The question on many leaders’ minds is whether Trump’s return will encourage a renewed American isolationism or push Europe to rely more heavily on its own resources and defence capabilities, an uncomfortable reality for many EU member states.

For China, Trump’s return to the White House presents a multifaceted challenge. Historically, Beijing has viewed Trump’s unpredictability with a mix of caution and concern. Trump’s initial foray into the China trade war, including aggressive tariffs and harsh rhetoric, fundamentally altered the trajectory of U.S.-China relations during his first term. Despite his chaotic leadership style, Trump’s administration successfully pushed the U.S. into a more confrontational stance with China, challenging its economic dominance and military expansion, particularly in the South China Sea.

Trump’s policies on trade, military alliances, and international norms were not solely aimed at China, but Beijing has certainly borne the brunt of them. His administration’s pivot to a “peace through strength” approach in foreign relations, backed by aggressive sanctions and strategic military positioning, upended previous diplomatic conventions. Under Trump, the U.S. strengthened partnerships with Japan, South Korea, and India, which in turn allowed these nations to more effectively counter China’s influence, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

With Trump’s return, Beijing is preparing for further unpredictability. China has long feared the collapse of its economic relations with the West due to Trump’s erratic trade policies, and the looming prospect of renewed tariffs could significantly affect global supply chains, particularly in sectors like technology and manufacturing. Japan, in particular, has favoured Republicans due to their focus on military deterrence and a hard-power approach to Beijing. Tokyo, despite historical resentment toward Washington’s heavy-handed tactics, understands that it cannot manage China’s growing threat without American support.

Trump’s first term saw a strengthening of strategic military partnerships in this region, particularly in the quadrilateral security dialogue with India, Japan and Australia. This alignment may be bolstered under a second Trump term, further complicating U.S.-China relations. In his second term, Trump could choose to lean further into these partnerships, signalling to China that any aggressive military or economic manoeuvring in the region would be met with a united front from the U.S. and its allies. However, his disdain for multilateral agreements may reduce the efficacy of these alliances, which have historically relied on long-term commitments.

As Donald Trump readies to assume the world’s toughest job as the 47th U.S. President, the global stage braces for a return to his unconventional brand of diplomacy. The jury is out on whether this leads to greater global stability or further fragmentation.