Trumpian Rhetoric In A Sensitive Question
A lunatic is best identified by his erratic words, followed by actions alike.
The US President matches this pattern – recent plans to resettle Palestinians and capitalize their homeland into a new Cape Cod created diplomatic buzz and are, luckily, yet to be followed by action. Trumpian rhetoric, although threatening at first sight, always comes with a grain of salt, and cannot be taken literally. Too often has the President failed to live up to his proposals to call himself an honest man. An angle of thought to his often-scandalous proposals is to see what is hidden within.
The Trumpian hyperbole
Future actions cannot be foreseen, and predictions distilled from past events are cursed with uncertainty. This line of thought applies a fortiori to the subject in question – who, honestly, would claim to know Trumpian thoughts or decipher a continuous political agenda if his governance is defined by nothing but surprise? Let’s see if the analysis of prior US diplomacy yields at least a small degree of continuity that helps us discern the purpose of the President's outrageous statements on Gaza’s resettlement.
Notwithstanding that only a few weeks have passed since Inauguration Day, his new dossier of diplomatic action is already filled thickly. Fuelled by enthusiasm and Diet Coke, the new administration has been making astonishingly quick progress in dismantling the rebuilt US image of a country capable of deliberate decision-making. Apart from introducing a national holiday to celebrate the existence of a large body of water that happens to border the US southern frontiers, some Presidential orders and statements entail more than pure symbolism.
Remember Trump's rants on Greenland? News of an inevitable take-over made headlines. Republican lawmakers even introduced a bill proposing to rename the island to “Red, White and Blueland”. On the international stage, these proposals have led to little but amusement. Talks about a quick take-over have slowed down and been overshadowed by other events, pushing away the realization of the deal. But behold - beyond first sight, these rants and efforts were just seemingly in vain.
Apart from mocking the U.S. in Danish media, they achieved their proper toll of results. As a reaction to the open take-over threats, the Danish military is investing 14 billion Kronen (2 billion EUR) to boost military defenses around the island. Although not openly linked, Trumpian rhetoric has arguably led to the fortification of an island being increasingly subject to US and Russian powerplay. Considering Danish NATO membership, this development is already a win for the US: taken over or not, a resilient NATO built-up around the island is arguably an American foreign policy interest. This unusual way of conducting diplomacy isn't surprising under the Trump administration.
Teasing its strength has been a salient tool to foster American interests without committing to their enforcement. Rhetorically, we speak of the Trumpian hyperbole – this term can be translated to “exaggeration” but that also includes notions of “excess” or “extravagance”. In his 1987 masterclass,“The Art of The Deal”, he wrote: “People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it a truthful hyperbole […] it’s a very effective form of promotion.”. It seems he is quite fond of this tool not just on the campaign trail but also recognizes its value for conducting blunt foreign policies – his exaggeration of claims, combined with his very own Trumpian unpredictability, makes allies and foes comply with his conditions. The “You never know” element in his policies has proven quite successful. If you are subjected to demands by a madman in power, would you reject these altogether? Or would you not concede a little to appease him?
Never change a winning team?
The application of excessive claims and ideas to the inhumane resettlement of around two million people demonstrates the limits of maximalist rhetorics and hyperboles. Boasting about US strength to achieve concession is a viable tool to secure limited gains in limited fields of interest. You concede just as much to appease the madman – but applied to an existential question, this tool loses its teeth and poses little negotiation leverage.
To discuss whether rhetoric can still be a tool at all, the value of limited gains in the Palestinian question must be discussed. What solution is there that the threat to relocate could advance? So far, it merely yielded angry reactions from US allies in the region, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, skepticism and happiness in the Israeli camp, depending on political directions, and despair and outrage in Gaza itself.
Trump attempts to replace old, wretched solutions by advancing the ridiculous. Alexander the Great solved the Gordian knot by cutting it with a sword after many wiser men failed to untie it. Making the analogy: Can Trump solve the decade-old conflict by stripping off its complexity, by obviously proposing excess?
Simple answer: No. If one imagines a relocation, one imagines the start of another endless war. There is a broad consensus on the impossibility, let alone moral responsibility, of this recklessness. Such relocation falls nothing short of immorality and of letting power politics overrule any humanitarian consideration in the 21st century. Here, in this existential question, we must recognize the limits of rhetoric.
While Trump attempts to cut the Gordian knot at once, others would rather untie it. “Others” are his dear Arab allies, who would receive streams of refugees according to the nightmarish dream of a “riviera of the east”. To head off this plan and propose an alternative solution, middle east leaders are currently convening in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Analysts expect appeasement offers to Trump and a conceding reconstruction plan for Gaza. Some may say this is another win for the Trump administration and its diplomatic qualities. What works with Denmark, works with Gaza?
No - this “victory” would be pyrrhic. The imposition of foreign wills on the existential question of Palestinian self-determination in Gaza is reckless - and forcing Arab allies to propose alternatives based on the ludicrous plan of a “riviera of the east” will lead to deserved distancing from the US. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind - act negligently and reap the hate.
These are the limits to hyperbolic rhetoric - bluntness can never replace the well-thought, thoughtless imposition can never trump the considerate solution. What we need is refinement of speech and refinement of thought. Banter and tease works out when we can at least define what we are bantering about, in an open-ended question without an easy solution in sight, this turns perilous.
Comments