Tumang, Darwin B.

ME – 201

Trump's Sovereignty Doctrine

What the president gets right and wrong about the right to self-government.
By Stewart Patrick Opinion Contributor

PRESIDENT DONALD Trump's reckless threat to "totally destroy" North Korea overshadowed
the core theme of his problematic speech to the United Nations: the centrality of "sovereignty" in
world politics. The president mentioned that concept no fewer than 21 times. It's worth
considering why he feels so strongly about sovereignty, what he gets right about it, and what he
gets wrong.
Sovereignty is one of the most frequently invoked, polemical and misunderstood ideas in
American politics. It is a hallowed talisman, connoting something as sacred as motherhood and
apple pie: a nation's right to govern itself and pursue policies independently from outside forces.
But because the term is poorly understood, those who invoke it often talk past one another. And
political opportunists frequently bring up the word to sidestep important debates about the nature
of U.S. national interests and prudent ways to pursue them.
In New York on Tuesday, the president invoked sovereignty both to assert universal truths and to
deflect messy realities. The result was a schizophrenic performance, in which he first put
sovereignty on a pedestal and then tore it down to embrace the cause of regime change.
Trump was at his best when he declared that the principle of state sovereignty stands not in
opposition to the United Nations, but is indeed the foundation upon which the U.N. was built.
The world body is an intergovernmental organization in which independent nations pursue their
national interests through cooperation on common purposes.
This was an important message to deliver to international and domestic audiences alike. It
confirmed that the U.N. is not – and should never aspire to be – a world government. It reassured
his nationalist political base that the world body poses no threat to the constitutional
independence of the United States. And it implied that foreign criticism of Trump's "America
First" stance was hypocritical, since all governments prioritize national interests within the U.N.
By making these points, the president laid groundwork for a more productive working
relationship with the U.N. than anybody anticipated on Jan. 20. Trump even lionized Harry
Truman, who presided over the U.N.'s creation in 1945, and endorsed the high-minded principles
of the U.N. Charter. But he also signaled that the United States would abandon the role of global
policeman and embrace a new "policy of principled realism." America would work with other
sovereign nations "in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all
people." But it would no longer seek "to impose our way of life on anyone," recognizing that the
world encompasses "diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different
dreams."
The president was on much shakier ground when he tried to reconcile his vision of sovereignty
with his demand that other U.N. members kowtow to U.S. preferences in confronting "rogue
regimes" that threaten global security and mistreat their citizens. In calling out North Korea and
Iran, as well as Cuba and Venezuela, Trump suggested that no country could be a "bystander" in
this contest between the "righteous many" and the "wicked few."
Beyond echoing George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech, this Manichean, with-us-or-against-us
rhetoric collided with the sovereign state individualism Trump had outlined just moments before.
Unless there exists a world community bound by international law, on what grounds could
Trump insist that all U.N. member states act? And if his intent was to rally other nations to U.S.
priorities, might not they demand that America respond to threats they consider existential, like
climate change?
Trump's sovereignty doctrine is also hard to square with his (selective) critique of dictators. The
president castigated Pyongyang, Teheran, Havana and Caracas for brutal repression. But if
domestic governance arrangements are internal, sovereign matters, on what grounds does Trump
complain? And why place only these regimes in the cross-hairs, without mentioning other tyrants
like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, all of whom the
president has lauded?
Trump is right to champion sovereignty as the bedrock of world order and the best way to
organize the globe in a diverse and plural world. But if the United Nations is to advance shared
security and prosperity, and even a measure of justice, the United States and other U.N. members
must expand their definition of sovereignty to encompass obligations, not just privileges.
The key to squaring this circle is to acknowledge and declare that sovereignty cannot be a blank
check. It implies fundamental responsibilities, not simply privileges. It is not enough to say all
governments can act as they wish, with no regard for other nations or their own citizens. And
when governments ignore these standards and violate rules, they cannot expect others to turn a
blind eye. They should expect consequences.
This was a conception of sovereignty on which both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, for all
their differences, agreed. Sovereignty is fundamental, but it also contingent. When countries
sponsor terrorism or pursue weapons of mass destruction in violation of international rules, or
when they make war on their citizens, they risk forfeiting their expectation of sovereign
inviolability.
To merit the 21-gun salute Trump gave it on Tuesday, sovereignty cannot simply mean
independence. It must be framed as responsibility. Doing so is the only way for the president to
claim the moral high ground as he seeks to rally the world to confront its most pressing
challenges. Simply threatening hellfire is no way to build international legitimacy.

Source: Stewart, P. (2017, Sept 23) Trump's Sovereignty Doctrine. What the president gets right
and wrong about the right to self-government. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/