Trump’s flawed leadership skills

US President Donald Trump was dubbed as the quintessential outsider to Washington DC when he defeated Hillary Clinton. His choices for key positions only reiterated this point, one such selection being Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, who worked with Oil Giant Exxon, and whose appointment raised eyebrows. There were objections not only from Democrats, but Republicans as well over the appointment.

Of late, significant differences between the President and Tillerson over a series of foreign policy issues, have come out in the open. Such differences are not unusual these days. Across the Atlantic, British PM Theresa May and her Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson have been having significant differences over key foreign policy issues such as the handling of Brexit, with Johnson opposing a soft exit, akin to the Swiss style, which May has lately been advocating.

If one were to look at the differences between Tillerson and Trump, strains between them became amply evident on the issue of North Korean nuclear tests. Tillerson was in favour of a diplomatic solution for the North Korean nuclear crisis, as he said the US had channels of communication with the country, and was “probing” to find ways to resolve the escalating nuclear tension between the two. Trump, with reference to Tillerson, tweeted, “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man . . . Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”

Tillerson may be new to the government and it’s functioning, but he has a sound understanding of geopolitics, as a consequence of his experience with Exxon, where he spent his whole life striking oil deals with different nations while working in places such as Yemen, Thailand and Russia before being named chief executive in 2006.

North Korea is not the only issue where Tillerson disagreed with Trump on foreign policy issues. Even on the issue of Iran, Qatar, and the climate change deal, Trump has taken a diametrically opposite view much to the consternation of Tillerson. While Trump has been keen to use force, Tillerson, who many perceive as a hawk, has openly spoken in favour of utilising the diplomatic option.

During the Qatar crisis, both took a completely opposite view. Tillerson sought  a diplomatic solution to the problem as he said all Middle Eastern countries should “sit down together and address these differences,”

Trump, on the other hand, lashed out at Qatar, saying, “During my recent trip to the Middle East, I stated that there can no longer be funding of radical ideology.”

Similarly, on the issue of Iran, both found themselves to be standing on opposite sides. President Trump has on more than one occasion lambasted the Iran nuclear deal, much to the discomfort of many US allies like Japan and a number of European countries. In his address at the United Nations General Assembly, the US President criticised the nuclear agreement with Iran and compared the country to  North Korea.

Tillerson, on the other hand, has taken a more nuanced approach to the nuclear agreement while using stern words for Iran, saying they are “threatening the security of those in the region as well as the United States itself”. In return, he sought to extract concessions from Iran.

On the issue of the Paris climate accord, both have divergent views. Even Tillerson expressed his discontent publicly against Trump’s desire to walk out of the accord. Said Tillerson, “I was free to express my views. I took a counter view to the decision that was made,”

The key point that arises is that, though, being an outsider to the political establishment, he may be welcomed by many, and his personality traits and the ability to take along at least some members of a team are imperative. Trump’s own team has expressed discomfort with his style of working. Trump’s former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has even warned the US President that his cabinet is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with him.

Apart from Trump’s inability to carry his team forward, it is important to remember that the US has always been the flag-bearer, not just of democracy and liberal values, but has had credibility because it has respected international agreements — irrespective of the party in power. Under Trump, the US is in danger of losing this credibility. What is also evident is that the transactional approach Trump possesses may be handy in certain cases, but is excessively simplistic, especially when it comes to dealing with a complex domestic policy as well as security issues. It is not just in America’s interest, but for global stability that Trump tweaks his style of functioning, otherwise global challenges — especially geo-political — are likely to multiply.

Maini is a New Delhi based Policy Analyst associated with Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat.

Sachdeva is an independent policy analyst. Views expressed are personal.