A Revolt of Allegiance: Democracies to Strongmen
According to some recent statements, Trump has clarified something that many analysts have always been watching keenly: he has become more and more aligned with the authoritative leaders in the Middle East than the classic Democratic allies. His rhetoric glorifies those leaders who he perceives as tough, decisive, and courageous enough to exercise control regardless of human-rights records or demands to make democratic changes. That type of strength, in his opinion, provides clarity, no muddled arguments, no politicians, just decision-making.
The Attraction of Trump to These Leaders
To Trump and some of his associates, the Middle East strongmen are some of the nicest things to have: stability, predictability, and efficiency. These are leaders who do not have to compromise with parliaments or alliances; their decision is the law. Trump has expressed his envy of such obvious power, indicating that he likes environments where power is concentrated and where the government does not feel threatened by opposition or protracted discussion.
Diplomacy of transaction over Ideals
In the workings of Trumpian politics, alliances have diminished in importance due to their focus on mutual benefit and not on shared political values. Before the credentials of democracy, there follow economic transactions, arms dealings, and strategic alliances. Previous regimes in the U.S. tended to leverage foreign aid or military collaboration to advance human rights or democracy-related reforms. This new posture, however, puts a higher value on the output of a regime’s energy, stability, and influence than on its treatment of its people.
What It Bodes about U.S. International Identity
This change is an indication of a wider review of America in the international scene. Instead of the goal of promoting a liberal international order, the administration is appearing to lean more and more towards the realm of realpolitik: power, interest, and being practical as opposed to being ideological. The U.S. has been boasting about itself as a moral example of democracy for decades; today, in warming up to dictators, it can be seen that the image is changing – whether to the better or to the worse.
Risks and Critics: What Can Go Wrong
Alliance with authoritarian regimes is not free. The US will also lose credibility among democratic allies by minimizing human rights, and this can potentially make the world cynical about Western motives. Moreover, transactional as it is, it may be fragile diplomacy: in case of a change of interests, so may alliances. And with no values in common, partnerships will be shallow and unsound.
In the case of Global Watchers: A New Normal or a Dangerous Detour?
This trend is an indicator of a crossroad for countries, activists, and the rest of the world. Will the international system be a more power-based, transactional system? Or shall this be a way-side, a fatal underminingof the principles for the sake of present profits? And to those citizens of authoritarian countries, the results are actually felt: when strategic interest is more important than human rights, the citizens can be heard, and their liberties put on the back burner.
