The Bolduc Brief: The Consequences of Unilateral Foreign Policy Decisions in the Trump Era

The adage “if you break it, you own it” succinctly encapsulates the moral and political responsibility that arises when a nation intervenes in the affairs of another, particularly through military action or significant foreign policy decisions. Under the Trump administration, this principle came to the forefront in various policy decisions, demonstrating the broader implications of foreign intervention and the long-term consequences of dismantling established patterns of diplomacy and governance.

The Consequences of Disruption

The Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy often emphasized unilateral action and an “America First” doctrine, which, while resonating with certain domestic audiences, led to significant disruptions on the international stage. An illustrative example is the administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, a multilateral agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The withdrawal not only strained relations with traditional allies in Europe who remained committed to the agreement but also emboldened Iran to resume its nuclear activities. In this context, if one considers the “break it, you own it” adage, it suggests that the United States, having withdrawn and undermined an established framework, now carries the burden of the consequences, including the potential for increased tensions and conflict in the Middle East.

Similarly, in the context of Syria, the Trump administration’s abrupt policy shifts, including the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the reduction of American support for Syrian democratic forces, created a power vacuum that allowed for the resurgence of various extremist groups and the expansion of Russian influence in the region. This decision illustrated how abandoning a carefully constructed policy can lead to unintended consequences that the initiating nation must then reckon with. The chaos that ensued post-withdrawal highlighted the notion that the U.S. could not simply disengage from responsibility after disrupting a fragile balance, thus reinforcing the adage that breaking a system or agreement inevitably leads to ownership of the resultant chaos.

The Ripple Effect of Reduced Diplomacy

The Trump administration’s shift away from traditional diplomacy also emphasized a transactional approach to international relations. The result was a decreased reliance on alliances and multilateral institutions, which had been cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy. The rejection of cooperative frameworks and a disregard for collective agreements can be viewed as a break from established norms, fostering resentment and distrust among global partners.

When a country prioritizes unilateralism and undermines the structures that ensure cooperative governance, it risks being left to manage the fallout alone. The repercussions extend beyond direct interactions; they influence perceptions and behaviors in other nations. Countries observing the U.S. disregard for diplomatic covenants may feel justified in pursuing their own interests without regard for previously established agreements. For example, the U.S. stance on climate change under the Trump administration, characterized by withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, emboldened other nations to approach climate policy less cooperatively.

The Challenge of Ownership

The implications of “owning” the consequences of foreign policy decisions are profound. Once a nation has disrupted a geopolitical landscape, particularly through military action or withdrawal from agreements, it may find itself in a position where it must invest significant resources, both in terms of military engagement and diplomatic efforts, to repair the damage. The potential for long-term instability in regions where U.S. intervention has been hasty or poorly planned underscores the heavy burden associated with foreign policy missteps.

Furthermore, the concept of ownership extends to moral responsibility. The U.S., with its self-identity as a promoter of democracy and human rights, is frequently evaluated on its consistency in applying these principles. When actions result in humanitarian crises or increased suffering, the onus is on the U.S. to address these issues, shaping its legacy on the global stage. The ethical implications of foreign policy decisions thus become intertwined with the practical realities of international relations.

Conclusion

The phrase “if you break it, you own it” serves as a poignant reminder of the responsibilities inherent in foreign policy, particularly as demonstrated by the Trump administration’s approach to international relations. The dismantling of established agreements and policies without adequate foresight can lead to disruptive consequences that must be managed by the very nation that instigated the upheaval. To navigate this complexity, future administrations must prioritize thoughtful engagement, recognizing that diplomatic efforts and multilateral cooperation lay the foundation for sustainable foreign relations. Ultimately, a commitment to collaborative governance not only helps prevent the breaking of systems but also mitigates the burdens of ownership in the wake of disruption.

Donald C. Bolduc