In 2020, as the world suffered through a global pandemic, then-president Donald Trump offered Russian leader Vladimir Putin scarce COVID-19 tests. This is according to famed journalist Bob Woodward’s new book War.
Opponents were quick to pounce.
“Remember, people were dying by the hundreds, everybody was scrambling to get these kits … and this guy, who was President of the United States, is sending them to Russia to a murderous dictator for his personal use,” Vice President Kamala Harris said.
Trump isn’t the first president to express care over a foreign leader’s health. But like so much in his presidency, though his actions have precedent, he deviates greatly from the past.
Leader-to-Leader Diplomacy
In the second half of the 20th century, leader-to-leader diplomacy became central to a president’s conduct of foreign policy. Technological advancements in communication and travel made frequent contact between world leaders possible. With this growing ability to engage came a growing need as international crises increased and presidents increasingly desired greater control over foreign policy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first president to make personal diplomacy a feature of his presidency. And his experience provides perspective on Trump’s COVID engagement with Putin.
One of the most frequent criticisms of Trump’s personal diplomacy is his coziness with dictators. During his presidency, he often spoke more highly of brutal authoritarians than democratic allies. But presidents have frequently had friendly relations with dictators, including Roosevelt.
During World War II, he sought to charm Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. At their first meeting at the Tehran Conference in 1943, he was determined to hit it off with the Soviet dictator. So much so that he mocked close ally British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to ingrate himself with Stalin.
Similarly, Roosevelt tried to establish a friendly relationship with Italy’s Benito Mussolini. Even as Italy became increasingly aggressive throughout the 1930s, FDR never condemned Mussolini and continued to build personal ties with him until the outbreak of WWII.
Roosevelt also shows that concern over other world leaders’ health and well-being exist from the beginning of presidential personal diplomacy. For example, in the weeks leading up to Churchill’s US visit in August 1944, the prime minister told the president of his recent illness. FDR replied how “distressed” he was and told Churchill to “guard your health first and above all other considerations.”
When it came to the King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia, FDR went further. In February 1945, after meeting Churchill and Stalin at the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt met with the Saudi king on his way home through the Suez Canal.
They discussed numerous issues, including Britain’s role in the Middle East and Palestine. On the personal side, the two men quickly established a friendly rapport. The king called FDR his “twin brother,” noting how they were of similar age, shared the same burdens as leaders, and both had a physical disability that made it hard to walk.
On this last point, Roosevelt told Ibn Saud that at least the king could still use his legs, but Ibn Saud lamented that they “grow feebler every year.” He said that FDR was better off because the president’s wheelchair assured that he would arrive at the places he needed to be.
Roosevelt then made a grand gesture and offered Ibn Saud one of his wheelchairs. He told the king that he had two, “which are also twins. Would you accept one as a personal gift from me?” This pleased the king, who replied, “Gratefully. I shall use it daily and always recall affectionately the giver, my great and good friend.”
The gifted wheelchair became a prized possession for the king. He often showed friends the device when they visited his palace, telling them, “This chair is my most precious possession. It is the gift of my great and good friend, President Roosevelt, on whom Allah has had mercy.”
FDR’s gesture showcased his charming and empathetic personality. But there was a political angle as well. During the war, American interests in the Middle East expanded, especially in Saudi oil. But compared to European powers like Britain and France, the United States didn’t have the same political ties to the region. So, giving the wheelchair to Ibn Saud was a personal gesture but, more importantly, a political one.
Challenges of Presidential Diplomacy
Advocates of personal diplomacy note how the practice can help build trust, generate empathy, and lead to better understanding. And a good relationship between leaders can strengthen bilateral ties. That was Roosevelt’s aim — and it worked.
One could argue that Trump was doing the same thing by giving COVID tests to Putin. But it’s far from clear that was his aim. And considering the testing shortage at home, it’s doubtful how the gesture advanced the national interest. Not to mention that doing so seems misaligned with the Trump administration’s watchword, “America First.”
Even Putin knew Trump’s actions were extraordinary. “I don’t want you to tell anybody,” he told Trump, “because people will get mad at you, not me.”
Thus, Trump’s personal diplomacy lacked the strategic element.
And there are other risks beyond a lack of strategic thinking. Personal diplomacy critics note that presidents aren’t trained diplomats and may be uniformed on policy. And as the ultimate decision maker, there is no one to save them if they make bad agreements. As president, Trump was blind to these pitfalls. He once said that when engaging foreign leaders, “there is nothing to lose and there is a lot to gain.”
A lack of guardrails amplifies these risks. As FDR and Trump illustrate, presidents are free to engage with whomever they’d like in whatever way they see fit. Congress could challenge presidential personal diplomacy, but its ability and will are often limited. But even if Congress acted, limiting presidents’ diplomatic flexibility and discretion is unlikely to produce better outcomes.
As another presidential election arrives, voters are once again tasked with deciding who they want to be diplomat-in-chief. Foreign policy is usually not at the top of voters’ minds. But presidents face few constraints on the world stage.
So, it’s up to voters to choose candidates they can trust to put the nation first. Because as former Secretary of State Dean Acheson warned, “When a chief of state or head of government makes a fumble, the goal line is open behind him.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.
