By Tom Fowdy
On the first day of the Republican National Convention in Wisconsin, Donald Trump, fresh off the wheels from an attempt on his life, appointed Ohio Senator J.D Vance as his running mate to be Vice President. Vance, soon turning 40, is seen as an interesting choice because he was once upon a time a "Never Trumper", a category of Republican who would under no circumstances support Donald in the 2016 general election. Despite this, Vance has since become an economic populist which is closely affiliated with Trump's positions.
Discussion on social media has primarily revolved around his overwhelming support for Zionism, as well as his criticism of Ukraine, being in the camp for cutting aid to the war torn country and focusing on Asia. This has led to pre-mature conclusions his appointment would consolidate a true "MAGA" foreign policy in Trump's likeliness. His preceding partner after all, Mike Pence, was a NeoConservative and famously did not get along with Trump on a number of issues, so it is little surprise despite the "Never Trumper" history that the Republican frontrunner has picked someone loyal to him this time round.
I for one, am relieved that Trump did not pick another NeoConservative to be his running mate. There were a few names that I was personally very fearful of gaining influence, including Marco Rubio and Nikki Haley for one, but we can hardly say these people are out of the running yet as they may absolutely pop up within the wider administration itself, and this is why for me the appointment of someone like J.D Vance just to name one reason, is not a gamechanger. While the President of the United States is the most influential and decisive actor within US foreign policy, it is contrary to common belief, not solely defined by him.
Rather, the specifics and fundamentals of US foreign policy come from a myriad of actors within and external to the administration, than work upon it. Although Trump will always be famed as "the one" who reset US foreign policy towards China, it is far more complicated than that. Knowing the details, a great deal of the shift was engineered by Mike Pompeo's State Department (who created the Uyghur genocide narrative) as well as deputy national security advisor Matthew Pottinger. These individuals were both NeoConservatives who had regime change and cold war designs for China, Pottinger at the least remains dangerously influential concerning debates on this matter, publishing several articles calling for such.
And herein lies the problem, Trump is a Republican, and the people he appoints around him are other Republicans, who as a defining feature have strongly NeoConservative views. Another shoutout to his previous administration was the appointment of John Bolton as chief National Security Advisor, one of the most notorious NeoConservative figures of all. Bolton engineered the botched Venezuela regime change effort as his own pet project, had a role in the Meng Wanzhou arrest saga and also undermined dialogue with North Korea. Even if Trump is individually a pragmatist on US foreign policy who audaciously pushes boundaries, wants to negotiate, and even sought to withdraw US troops from certain places, he found himself repeatedly thwarted by the system.
And in this case, I am deeply pessimistic about the foreign policy outlook of a future Trump administration, even to the point I have publicly made it clear I think Biden is the "lesser evil" so to speak, albeit he has since undermined himself. I believe that another Trump administration will again staff itself with NeoConservatives who will together advocate a strategy of attempting to end the Ukraine war (albeit with resistance) and renormalise with Russia, will give Israel a free reign to do whatever it wants, dramatically escalate tensions with Iran and likewise, escalate with China again on multiple fronts, presumably accelerating full blown decoupling. This will be disastrous for the entire world and brings grave uncertainty.
Therefore, one can understand why the appointment of J.D Vance as a potential Vice President is largely inconsequential in the bigger picture of what Trump administration will do. Trump's foreign policy has always been a jagged to-and-fro between "America first" nationalism, rampant unilateralism but also aggressive NeoConservatism. This of course distinctively different to the "Liberal Internationalism" the Biden administration advocates, but in reality, it is just another head of the same beast which is the US foreign policy machine, which operates on a consensus which is detached and unaccountable to the highly toxic mantra which domestic politics in America has become.
The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Donald Trump, a man who seizes the moment
Opinion | Can the UK reset its ties with China
Opinion | Broken Britain, the end of 14 years of Conservative government
Comment