Recently, President Donald Trump observed a historic handshake between leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House, marked by the signing of what he termed a ‘peace deal’ to resolve nearly four decades of conflict.
This agreement, as outlined by the White House, grants the United States exclusive rights to develop a transit corridor through southern Armenia, effectively linking Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan.
In a bold branding move, this corridor has been designated the ‘Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity.’
Through this initiative, Trump has positioned the US as a security guarantor in the South Caucasus, framing the deal as a commercial opportunity for American enterprises.
Experts refer to this strategy as transactional foreign policy, which emphasizes offering rewards or wielding threats to compel actions, diverging from traditional diplomacy based on shared values.
While historical US presidents have intertwined economic incentives with foreign diplomacy, Trump’s approach marks a distinct departure: a foreign policy liberated from institutional limitations and aimed at democratic allies, serving personal interests in ways no previous president has pursued.
Throughout history, US presidents have often adopted transactional tactics.
Early in the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt vowed to protect Latin American nations from internal and external threats to safeguard debt owed to American financiers.
This sometimes necessitated military intervention, such as the US’s control of customhouses in the Dominican Republic during 1905 and Cuba in 1906.
His successors—Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge—also employed military force in several Latin American nations, including Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, and Panama.
By the mid-20th century, Presidents Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy revamped foreign aid strategies to counter the spread of communism via land reform initiatives aimed at easing rural poverty, a perceived breeding ground for communist recruitment during the Cold War.
Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower exerted financial leverage on the UK during the 1956 Suez Crisis.
In response to British and French military actions following the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the US blocked Britain’s access to financial aid from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), forcing a withdrawal of its troops.
More recently, President Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal represented another form of transactional diplomacy, linking sanctions alleviation with nuclear program limitations.
Under President Joe Biden, similar negotiations regarding Armenia and Azerbaijan began, suggesting that a comparable peace agreement, albeit potentially under a different branding, could have emerged under a Kamala Harris administration.
However, Trump’s approach stands in stark contrast to the historical precedents set by his predecessors.
His strategies echo those of authoritarian leaders, particularly noted during his second term, operating with minimal constraints from Congress or the judiciary while basing policies on personal inclinations rather than institutional consistency.
This shift materializes through several notable patterns:
Firstly, Trump conducts his foreign policy with scant regard for both domestic and international legal frameworks.
His tariff policies are often cited as potential violations of international agreements and US law.
Secondly, he systematically targets democratic allies while aligning with authoritarian regimes.
This level of hostility towards traditional allies is unprecedented; for instance, threats against Canada and praise for authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Viktor Orbán, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have characterized his tenure.
Thirdly, Trump’s focus on domestic political rivals overshadows longstanding foreign adversaries, as he has dismantled institutions he perceives as hostile, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
Notably, he has even deployed federal agents to US cities under questionable legal bases.
Finally, Trump capitalizes on American foreign policy for personal enrichment in ways that lack precedent among previous presidents.
Reports indicate he has accepted substantial gifts from foreign governments, which include a valued Boeing 747-8 from Qatar, projected to serve as Air Force One, now earmarked for his presidential library foundation.
Additionally, the Trump Organization has pursued luxury tower projects in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, while his son-in-law Jared Kushner secured a US$2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund mere months after leaving the White House, though Kushner denies any conflict of interest.
Research consistently shows that authoritarian methods yield poorer alliances, reduced investment in public goods, and the establishment of unreliable commitments.
Trump’s approach further erodes state capacity as professional diplomatic services worsen, favoring loyalty-driven networks at the expense of institutional integrity.
The dilution of career diplomatic services and development agencies signifies a shift away from institutional competence, impairing the ability to execute international agreements effectively.
Trump’s style also fosters a culture of flattery over collaborative interests, exemplified by the naming of the Armenian transit corridor—the act resembling earlier instances such as Poland’s 2018 proposal for a US military base dubbed ‘Fort Trump,’ foreign nominations for a Nobel peace prize, and overt diplomatic flattery.
These tactics appear designed to seduce leaders with personal adulation instead of reinforcing American strategic interests.
In contrast to previous presidents, who generally contextualized transactional deals within broader institutional frameworks like NATO, the IMF, and liberal trade systems, Trump’s dealings reflect a different approach.
While initiatives such as the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement could foster regional stability and enhance trade opportunities within the South Caucasus, they underscore a distinct form of American leadership—one that leans towards the undemocratic.
image source from：theconversation
