The McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies hosted a Trump Administration Foreign Policy Roundtable on February 7 in the Ryan Lounge at McCormack Hall. Four UMass Boston professors convened to discuss three different angles of the administration: policy, diplomacy, and whether the world is in the midst of a paradigm shift in how nations relate to each other.
 As stated by the moderator, Dean David Cash of the McCormack Graduate School, “I don’t think I’ve ever led a panel that’s as timely as this one; we’re in an incredible time of transition right now.”
To this end, each professor offered a short opening statement followed by a Q and A session from audience members.
Dr. Stacy D. VanDeveer (Professor, Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance) kicked off the statements by stressing that a leader must be clear about policies and consistent in message. When we think of President Trump, Professor VanDeveer mused, we must consider questions of inconsistency in the administration’s messaging and the sending of mixed signals. In international security and trade politics, for example, this may cause complications for those in the state or commerce departments of the USA or its allies, or send “a lot of dangerous signals” for security policy or to those who might be “adventurous, or worse.”
The next speaker, Dr. Leila Farsakh (Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Liberal Arts), addressed the president’s US policy toward the Middle East, predicting that the administration will retreat from the region and “subcontract” its current duties to other actors in the region including Turkey, Iran, and possibly Russia.
Professor Farsakh outlined four pillars of US policy towards the Middle East: the USA’s “special relation to Israel,” its relation to Iran, ISIS, and oil. In dealing with these issues, the professor noted that the Trump administration has made and then retreated from statements, such as claiming that it would attack ISIS and then doing nothing substantial. She mentioned how the Trump administration uses different language than the Obama administration, is more vocal on certain topics like Israel, and in general is more blunt.
The third speaker, Dr. Sripad Motiram (Associate Professor, Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts), outlined two trends in manufacturing: that the “real manufacturing wage” has been stagnant, and that while inequality has increased, the share for labor and the actual number of manufacturing jobs has declined. According to Professor Motiram the effects of NAFTA, for example, have been more pronounced on certain industries and groups such as blue-collar workers, and there is a lot of debate on how much job destruction has happened.
Dr. Maria Ivanova (Associate Professor, Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance) concluded the opening remarks, touching upon the United Nations and climate change, and “how it relates to each and every one of us.”
After outlining the creation of the UN by the United States (FDR’s “crowning achievement”), Professor Ivanova asked, “Will the United States pull out of the United Nations? Will the United States pull out of the Paris agreements?” These would seem curious moves given that the UN is located in New York City, and that the Paris agreements committed the US to a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy—hardly a cause for complaint.
Arguments in favor of leaving the UN or the Paris accords cite that the US contributes 22 percent of the UN budget, a huge portion. Professor Ivanova countered this figure by identifying the US as the world’s largest economy, while the second largest economy—the European Union—collectively pays 30 percent of the budget. This fact is minimized by critics who “disaggregate” the EU into individual countries and use that data for the comparison, skewing the perception of the fiscal responsibility of the US to the UN.
In the Q&A portion of the discussion, Dean Cash asked what would be wrong with President Trump’s unpredictability acting in the “best interests of the United States.” Dr. VanDeveer responded with his fears that the administration “may think they’re shrewd and that chaos is in their interests,” but that he is not “optimistic about the outcome” of such a strategy. Dr. Farsakh answered that the president is interested in business and his approach is business-like, but her main worry at a strategy of unpredictability is that a terrorist attack on this country would lead to major repercussions.
On the subject of international development, Dr. Motiram mentioned how Trump “has articulated the rhetoric of ‘America first.’” Professor Ivanova stated that if the US retreats from the international development agenda, China can step in (such as how it already invests in infrastructure in Africa), because countries need support for development and “they will go where they can get it;” if the US steps away from its role in development, that vacancy will be filled.
 In closing, Professor Ivanova mentioned that the soft power of the USA derives not just from government but also from citizens and businesses, and so we as individuals have our share of power. Dr. Motiram stressed his concerns over unpredictability in the global trade regime, while Professor Vandeveer asked students to tell Washington what we think, and beyond Washington, to improve UMass-Boston and Massachusetts in general. As Professor Ivanova eloquently stated, “the strongest and the most durable force is apathy,” and we have been lulled into this as consumers.