In his first two years as US president, Donald Trump has changed the way Washington approaches the world in fundamental ways. Combined with other changes in global politics, his presidency is accelerating significant change in the global system. US presidents always pursue foreign policy in their individual ways. Barack Obama emphasized American leadership but also sought a shift toward more cooperative burden-sharing. George W. Bush took a much more unilateral approach, but he also retained many aspects of traditional American leadership. Bill Clinton sought to forge a post-Cold War role for US leadership, while George H. W. Bush worked to pragmatically steer the country through the turbulent period at the end of the Cold War. While previous presidents had a range of views on foreign policy, they all believed in promoting US values and democracy, maintaining long-term alliances, abiding by most diplomatic protocols, maintaining global institutions, and promoting trade. They all accepted that the US — with its preponderance of power — had a special responsibility to uphold global stability. Trump is fundamentally different. He approaches foreign policy with an assumption of US strength and dominance, with a belief that other countries must eventually succumb to US demands. He believes that, through demands, threats and his own charisma, he can force other countries to concede. There is some evidence to suggest that, in some cases, such as the recent renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, he may be right. In other cases, such as the trade war with China, which Trump escalated in 2018, it is much less clear that his assumptions will prove true. Furthermore, his approach might work in the short term, while severely diminishing Washington’s valuable soft power in the long term. Trump also takes a purely transactional approach to global relations. He does not accept any sense of special US responsibility to the world. He has no sense of an inherent value in a past bilateral relationship; rather he is only interested what a country or fellow leader can do for him today. He places great importance on his personal relationships with foreign leaders, but these are dependent on their public support for Trump, as his up-and-down relationships with Emmanuel Macron, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping demonstrate. Trump opposes the post-Second World War order that the US was instrumental in creating. That order is based on a belief in the sovereignty of individual states combined with an awareness that countries must often cooperate in order to address mutually shared concerns. In the modern world, no single country on its own can address transnational challenges such as migration, climate concerns, nuclear threats, disease, terrorism and bellicose state actors. After learning that lesson the hard way in the Second World War, the US and other countries created global institutions such as the UN and the World Bank and regional organizations to serve as platforms that countries could use to work together. Trump is not alone in rejecting those institutions and norms but, as the leader of the country that plays a key role in maintaining that system, there is much he can do to damage it. However, he does not have a vision for what should replace the global system. He took the helm of the world’s superpower at a time when cracks in the foundation of the global system were already showing, with Brexit, right-wing populism in Europe, and Russia and China challenging the system’s norms. The 45th president is ready to widen those cracks rather than trying to reinforce the foundation. However, his ability to change the course of US foreign policy is limited. The president is the most important actor in US foreign policy, but Congress has a role, too. In 2019, Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives and are likely to use their limited powers there to oppose Trump’s foreign policy moves. Additionally, the Trump administration has views ranging from National Security Advisor John Bolton’s readiness to reject global norms to Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ efforts to save long-term military alliances. Frequent changes in foreign policy leadership also complicate efforts to change course; the last year saw Bolton replace H.R. McMaster, Mike Pompeo replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announce her departure. Additionally, it takes time to completely re-orient the US foreign policy apparatus after years of bilateral and multilateral agreements. Trump took the helm of the world’s superpower at a time when cracks in the foundation of the global system were already showing. Kerry Boyd Anderson Trump has supporters who share his disdain for institutions and norms — and who agree with a zero-sum approach that assumes states compete for limited resources and only cooperate in transactional ways that suit their narrow interests. Many agree with a worldview that rejects any belief in shared principles and values and long-term alliances, preferring to focus on a limited range of interests and relationships. His critics, however, are furious at Trump’s erosion of a global system that, despite many flaws, has helped make the world safer and fostered huge advances in human health and prosperity. Many long-term allies and trade partners feel betrayed by a president using threats after many years of close bilateral relations. In 2018, US foreign policy was often confusing to the rest of the world, including US partner countries. This was partly due to Trump acting on his own personal instincts, with no grand strategy. It partly reflected differing views within his administration and the government on foreign policy goals and policies. That sense of confusion is likely to continue in 2019. Indeed, it might increase, because Trump will have to contend with a Democrat-controlled House. He will also face growing domestic pressures, likely to include further investigations into his campaign and actions as president and possibly could include economic difficulties. On the other hand, it is possible that personnel changes will result in more foreign policy leaders in the Trump administration who embrace his worldview. These changes in US foreign policy suggest a number of implications for US allies, rivals and other countries in the next year. Perhaps the most important implication is the gradual erosion of US leadership. The US still has the world’s most powerful military, biggest economy and extensive diplomatic and cultural influence. Many countries want trade, investment, aid, military support and other things from the US. However, Washington’s willingness and ability to act as an economic, military and diplomatic counterweight to China and Russia is in decline. Trump has no interest in acting as the defender of the post-Second World War global order. The US is losing soft power, as the laughter at the UN during Trump’s speech in September demonstrated. Countries and their leaders will face ongoing unpredictability in Washington. Trump will continue to follow his instincts. If he faces growing domestic political pressures, he might react by taking bigger risks in foreign and trade policy. Uncertainty regarding turnover among key foreign policy officials could sharpen a sense of instability. Furthermore, there is growing polarization of foreign policy in the Trump era. For many years, foreign policy was a rare area of some bipartisanship in Washington, on issues such as support for military action in Afghanistan, extensive support for Israel and generally for free trade. However, Trump is such a polarizing figure that Democrats increasingly reject anything that seems aligned with him. A challenge for foreign leaders is that having a close relationship with Trump is the best way to gain his support, but it also guarantees drawing the ire of Democrats, which can complicate relations with Congress and may present a long-term risk if a Democrat wins the presidency. Overall, it is difficult to gauge the actual strength of the US. The last year’s dispute between the country and Europe over sanctions against Iran provides an example. Europe’s determination to try to circumvent US secondary sanctions on business with Iran demonstrates the decline in Washington’s influence, as the Obama administration had successfully brought Europe on board with tightened sanctions prior to the nuclear deal. However, European leaders and businesses have found it difficult to actually get around US sanctions, given the continuing dominance of the US economy and financial system. The next year might be critical in determining whether Trump’s break with years of traditional US foreign and trade policy is successful. Much will depend on whether Beijing makes major concessions to Washington and on how the trade war affects the US economy. Much will also depend on how global politics play out, and how Trump deals with the diminishing influence the US has to determine global outcomes. One way or another, 2019 will be a risky year regarding the US’ relations with the rest of the world. Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Twitter: @KBAresearch Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view