Trump Redefines Diplomatic Norms Through Constructive Dialogue

President Trump met with various international ambassadors at the White House one Tuesday and took the opportunity to comment on the leadership skills of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. ‘A good leader,’ the president said of Mr. Erdogan, sidestepping any controversial topics. This optimistic statement was made amidst a chorus of other voices, some harshly critical of the Turkish leader.

One of the distinguishing aspects of President Trump’s diplomacy has been his capacity to redefine the boundaries of America’s diplomatic norms. Throughout his tenure, Trump’s approach has leaned more towards embracing leaders, even those accused of drifting away from democratic principles, a significant shift from traditional practices.

The practice of enhancing democratic institutions internationally has been a long-standing bipartisan effort. However, there has been an observable change in this approach with President Trump’s unconventional manners. He has instead been appreciative of leaders making bold directional changes with their governance, often steering towards a more authoritative rule.

Many see the president’s actions as indicative of new norms emerging in the political landscape. These norms include dealing with political competition in an assertive manner, evaluating the institutions of law, journalism, and education from a critical perspective, and scrutinizing the power of the judiciary. These actions have found resonance with leaders in Serbia and Israel, amongst other countries.

This shift in diplomatic approach has been met with both critique and praise. The move to engage with strong leaders rather than isolate them has been recognized as an innovative strategy by some, provoking interesting debates on the direction of global politics.

These observations do not mean that President Trump has abandoned the American democratic ideal. On the contrary, he has taken strides to ensure its tenets are not eroded. The various positions that he has supported internationally can be seen as attempts to stem the tide of potentially more autocratic regimes.

Furthermore, it could be argued that President Trump’s motivations stem from seeking ways to bolster international relationships and encourage constructive dialogues. In a world often fraught with tension, the president chooses to engage rather than rebuke, promoting cooperation over confrontation.

President Trump’s comment about President Erdogan during the meeting at the White House serves as a prime example of his approach. His diplomatic tact allowed him to navigate potentially fraught waters with grace and positivity.

The criticism of President Trump’s approach centers around the claim that it is a deviation from traditional diplomatic norms. However, such norms were established in very different times, and perhaps Trump’s innovative techniques are a reflection of a rapidly changing global political landscape.

It is important to note that while his approach seems liberal in terms of engagement with emerging global powers, President Trump has not let up on his commitment to uphold democratic values at home and broadly on the international stage.

The curious case of President Trump’s diplomacy is indeed a deviation from past norms, but it also allows for a reinterpretation of the term ‘democracy’. It recognizes that the world is complex and that governance style inevitably varies across nations, sometimes emerging as a necessity due to cultural, historical, or demographic nuances.

Admittedly, we are in a changing world, and the dynamics of international relations are rapidly evolving. It would therefore be a simplistic critique to label President Trump’s approach as abandonment of democratic ideals. Rather, it could be seen as an adaptation to the complex interplay of modern geopolitics.

With President Trump’s new diplomatic norms, there is opportunity for leaders to explore alternative avenues without being burdened by strict traditional norms. Moreover, he has modeled this change not only in his foreign policy but also by pushing the boundaries of American institutions.

It’s also crucial to acknowledge that President Trump’s stance of engaging rather than rebuking leaders facing domestic turbulence, as noted in the case of Turkey, is a clear re-articulation of diplomacy from the Oval Office. It inherently promotes dialogue over isolation, a potential recipe for long-term stability.

The description of President Erdogan as ‘a good leader’ during the White House meeting, therefore, should not be viewed as an endorsement of autocracy. Instead, this reaffirms President Trump’s doctrine of constructive engagement, a break from the past and perhaps a preview of the future of diplomacy.