The Tribune

WITH the US presidency stumbling from one crisis to another during the last few months, those who want it to fail are now scenting blood in the aftermath of the furore over the drama at Charlottesville and the latest in a string of high profile departures from the White House. But what does this mean for America’s position in the world?

Inevitably, the current political turmoil continues to take centre stage. This is fuelled by the sense of instability and even dismay and despair engendered by a president who many now feel he has not only shown a lack of judgment and competence in office – exacerbated by inflammatory and ill-conceived comments and tweets – but is not to be trusted to make the right choices as commander in chief with the awesome responsibility of having a finger on the nuclear button.

Even Republican colleagues are now questioning Mr Trump’s fitness for the job and whether he has the self-discipline and basic temperament to govern successfully. Furthermore, with his combative and threatening approach there is now doubt whether he will be able to push through his legislative agenda. Such domestic disunity and division has induced concern about possible damage in the longer term to the economy and welfare of the most powerful nation on earth.

This is also of particular importance to neighbouring countries like The Bahamas, dependent as we are on our giant neighbour for our security and economic welfare, not least as a supplier of the country’s needs for goods and services and also as a major source of tourists.

What is equally troubling to America’s friends and allies is that, while the USA should be a symbol of justice, liberty and democratic governance, a weakened presidency may be unable to provide the sensible, rational and reliable leadership which is needed in the face of global tensions and conflict.

The isolationism of the 1930s was abruptly reversed by the US’s crucial role in the Second World War, following which it has remained heavily involved in world affairs. In opposition to the USSR during the Cold War, it called the shots globally in the struggle against communism, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s America’s role in an increasingly dangerous world has become even more demanding and influential.

The special quality of American exceptionalism as an expression of a uniquely free country based on democratic ideas and values has gradually become less significant following the decline of communism, though it has helped to foster national identity. But the populism which brought Mr Trump to power was based perhaps more on patriotism than nationalism. The former, as a love of country and its values, beliefs and way of life, can be differentiated from nationalism which is rooted in rivalry and a sense of superiority together with a desire to advance one’s country’s interests even at the expense of those of other countries. The founding principle of the European Union was that war is precipitated by nationalism which has become almost a pejorative term. But it is not clear whether such distinctions may be in the forefront of the President’s thinking.

So far, he seems to have performed more successfully on the world stage than at home. Apart from withdrawal from the landmark Paris climate agreement and from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he has shown a readiness to become engaged far and wide, including visits to Europe and the Middle East and major policy speeches in Poland and Saudi Arabia. He has also vigorously confronted the regime in North Korea over its nuclear weapons threat and, this week, has delivered a sober and thoughtful analysis of America’s future involvement in Afghanistan.

Such engagement will be welcomed by many in the West. It might not fit with the disentanglement from the world expected by some of his nationalistic supporters, but it was notable in his speech about Afghanistan that the declared objective was to eliminate terrorists rather than become involved in nation building and the imposition of democracy.

To many people, the danger lies in the sort of bluster and strong rhetoric used in relation to North Korea which raises the stakes and could incite avoidable disaster. It is therefore seen as an ill-advised substitute for quiet but tough diplomacy.

With many dangerous hotspots, it is essential for the one superpower to be fully involved in international relations and continue to work actively for global peace. But the prospect of an impetuous president taking precipitate action without proper consultation and exercise of traditional checks and balances remains unnerving.

The western world, in particular, can only look on with deep concern and hope that wise heads will intervene where necessary to ensure that calm, order and sound judgment will prevail wherever possible in the future conduct of America’s foreign policy.