To judge by the tone adopted at this year’s annual White House correspondents’ dinner, most American journalists do not seem to hold Donald Trump’s presidency in very high regard. Relations between Trump and the media elite have been under strain since last year’s presidential election when Trump, with some justification, accused many outlets of having a pro-Democrat bias. This no doubt explains why Trump decided to boycott this year’s jamboree in favour of attending a rally of his supporters in Pennsylvania, a choice that will do little to improve his media profile.
The problem with the president’s fractious relationship, though, is that it means most of the coverage, both in America and around the world, is so negative, even when, as has been the case with Trump’s early forays into the complex world of foreign policy, he deserves a degree of credit. Syria, Russia, North Korea, China, Afghanistan and Iran are just some of the countries that have had to undertake a radical reappraisal of their dealings with Washington because of decisive action by Trump during his first 100 days in office. No longer are tyrants like President Bashar Al Assad of Syria free to act with impunity against rebel groups. With the barrage of missile strikes Trump ordered against Syria last month, the president has shown the Al Assad regime and its Russian backers that, from now on, rogue regimes will be held accountable for their actions. The strikes have certainly had a salutary effect on Damascus, where there has been no sign of any chemical weapons activity. Moscow has also been made to understand that it no longer has free rein to meddle in the Middle East.
Having initially condemned the air strikes, Russian President Vladimir Putin has now indicated that he wants to work with Washington to end the Syrian conflict, an issue that topped Trump’s conversation on Tuesday with his Russian counterpart. Tackling a dysfunctional state like North Korea has confounded presidencies back to the Bill Clinton era. But Trump’s robust response to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons programme has had a dramatic effect on other regional players, most notably the Chinese, who for too long have turned a blind eye to Pyongyang’s irresponsible behaviour.
In addition, the massive bomb dropped on terrorists in eastern Afghanistan has reminded the world of the need to support the democratically elected government in Kabul, while the strong comments made by General James Mattis, the US Secretary of State, about Iran’s unwelcome interference in the Arab world should concentrate a few minds in Tehran. In short, therefore, we have an American president who not only takes an interest in the outside world, but one who is prepared to act decisively against threats that challenge the US, as well as its allies. For those of us who were highly critical of the Barack Obama administration’s “leadership from behind” mantra, this is a welcome change, one that suggests that Washington is willing to resume its traditional leadership of the western alliance.
It is also good news for Britain which, despite the Government’s attempts to scale down the Armed Forces, still remains one of Washington’s closest allies. Maintaining good relations with the White House is vital for United Kingdom’s national security, as well as its standing in the world, which is why British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was right to suggest week before last that, if asked, Britain should consider supporting future US military action against rogue states like Syria. By contrast, recent report by the House of Lords International Relations Committee, which recommends the UK distance itself from the US under the “mercurial and unpredictable” Trump, could not be wider of the mark. To my mind, this is just another example of how the unelected members of the Lords seem to delight in undermining British interests, whether on Brexit or Britain’s vital relationship with one of its staunchest allies. Not that the committee members responsible for these bizarre conclusions have much of a track record to boast of with the Middle East.
John Reid is still haunted by the claim he made when serving as Labour’s defence secretary that British troops might be able to complete their mission in Afghanistan without fighting the Taliban, while Baroness Belic, William Hague’s former foreign policy adviser, was a cheerleader for the military intervention that helped create the mess that is modern-day Libya. For, rather than spurning Trump, Britain should be embracing the new administration, and using our influence to build a strong relationship that safeguards the security of the western alliance.
And to this end, we should champion Trump’s foreign policy achievements instead, as so many journalists do in Washington, of endlessly trying to ridicule them.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London, 2017
Con Coughlin is the Telegraph’s defence editor and chief foreign affairs columnist.
