Nixon and Kissinger played an important role in establishing the U.S. relationships with China and the Middle East. Following the October War, Kissinger chose Grand Strategy to encourage the Soviet Union to restrain Israel and misallocate their resources in order to prevent the conflict (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 8). Kissinger compared this approach to a chess game because the United States tried to play simultaneous chess and open the game unusually, “play[ing] both boards at the same time” (Simmons et al., 2011, p. 147). On the one hand, the United States needed to preserve peace for its citizens; on the other hand, it is prepared for any outcomes. Nixon and Kissinger preferred to keep a neutral position in the October War, thus trying to secure a desirable resolution in the Middle East. Their main goal was to maintain stability, and their approach had significantly altered U.S. foreign policy.
The key elements of U.S. diplomacy to China and the Middle East were aimed at keeping the United States out of the problems of world affairs and improving foreign relations. In 1955, the United States’ efforts resulted in the formation of the Bagdad Pact Organization, also known as METO, or the Middle East Treaty Organization (Al Sarhan, 2017, p. 458). The main purpose of this organization was to “limit possible Soviet Union expansion in the Middle East region” (Al Sarhan, 2017, p. 458). The United States realized that if the Soviet Union interfered with the military conflict in the Middle East, the outcomes would be deplorable for the U.S. After that, the States continued as a non-signatory associate, thus preserving its status quo and maintaining peace within the country.
The United States’ diplomacy has changed significantly from the beginning of the Cold War to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. During the Cold War, the main elements of U.S. diplomacy were containment, deterrence, and détente (Al Sarhan, 2017, p. 458). The country maintained neutral relationships with its opponents and supported allies in a nonaligned way. However, in the post-Cold War era, the U.S. changed its principles to hegemony, leadership, military power, and primacy (Al Sarhan, 2017, p. 458). It maintained its military presence in the Middle East, and this decision was successful because it helped the country ensure safe access to oil and guarantee the constancy and safety of the friendly regimes. Moreover, the U.S. made available quick replies to internal and external crises, opposed radical forces and Islamic extremists, and sustained the short- and long-term foreign policy plans (Al Sarhan, 2017, p. 465). One can see that the U.S. diplomacy to China and the Middle East helped it protect its national interests despite the double standards the state preserved.
At the same time, Nixon’s diplomacy was slightly different from that of Kissinger, and the current U.S. foreign policy toward China and the Middle East partially mirrors the former President’s approach. Nixon developed his “Madman Theory” aimed to convince opponents that he was crazy and that the only way to avoid unpredictable and disproportionate American actions was concessions (Bentley & Lerner, 2021, p. 355). In such a way, the United States managed to normalize relationships with China, creating an alliance and formal diplomatic ties (Yarhi-Milo et al., 2016, p. 104). In the 1970s, the United States used China to contain the Soviet Union threat, supplying costly arms to Taiwan and practicing deterrence (Yarhi-Milo et al., 2016, p. 104). However, the U.S. did not want to harm its relations with China, and it continued to play a double game, supporting both Taiwan and China. Similarly, the U.S. did not transfer additional arms to Israel because it wanted to preserve positive relations with the Arab world and maintain the balance of power.
Nowadays, President Trump uses Nixon’s Madman Theory approach to explain his personal behavior in relation to China. However, Trump’s unpredictability differs from that of Nixon because it is more deliberate, while Nixon’s behavior was spontaneous (Bentley & Lerner, 2021, p. 355). Trump’s impulsivity, emotions, and provocations shaped the U.S.’s relationships with China. For instance, scapegoating of China in respect of the U.S. trade deficit invoked spontaneous tariffs against this country in May 2019, which led to a huge drop in stock prices across Asia, negatively affecting the whole world (Bentley & Lerner, 2021, p. 356). Currently, Trump’s anti-China rhetoric is shifting the relationships between these two countries, and this shift will continue to enhance in the future.
As to the Middle East, the U.S. current foreign policy differs from Nixon’s approach. Trump re-approaches the previous President Obama’s neutral combinations and engagement, such as encouraging democratic reforms, attaining a peace deal between Palestine and Israel, and avoiding the Sunni-Shia divide (Beck, 2019, pp. 298-299). Instead, Trump has introduced a Muslim travel ban and is promoting bloc by the Middle East countries aimed to contain Iran (Beck, 2019, p. 299). His pragmatic and adamant policy seems to be effective for the U.S., but its long-term outcomes will be seen only in the future.
References
Al Sarhan, A. S. (2017). United States foreign policy and the Middle East. Open Journal of Political Science, 7, 454-472. Web.
Beck, M. (2019). US Middle East policy shift: Trump’s administration divergency. RUDN Journal of Public Administration, 6(4), 296-311. Web.
Bentley, M., & Lerner, A. B. (2021). Introduction: Trump and unpredictability in international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(3), 348-359. Web.
Simmons, A., McGraw, J. J., & Lauchengco, D. (2011). The sovereignty solution: A common sense approach to global security. Naval Institute Press.
Yarhi-Milo, K., Lanoszka, A., & Cooper, Z. (2016). To arm or to ally? The patron’s dilemma and the strategic logic of arms transfers and alliances. International Security, 41(2), 90-139. Web.