"Trump's victory in the US election will be a huge challenge for the world", "Trump's victory will be a shock to the whole world, and Europe will have to think about plan B" - these are just some of the statements made by Latvian politicians four years ago as the just now dethroned Donald Trump took his its first steps as President of the most influential country in the world.
Apart from senior state officials and the Foreign Minister, many politicians spoke extremely ruthlessly about Trump's victory in 2016, which gave the then leader of the Harmony party (Latvian: Saskaņa) an objective basis for criticizing the critics themselves.
The newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, has won a fierce competition, so it is unpleasant to watch Latvia's right-wing politicians criticize the US electorate for their choice, Nils Ušakovs, the leader of Harmony, said at the time.
The politician believed that the results of the US presidential election had shown that Trump was better able to understand the "problems of ordinary people" and that in a democracy the winner is determined by the people.
We asked Rihards Kols (National Alliance, Latvian: Nacionālā apvienība), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Saeima, how the presidency of Trump should be assessed from the perspective of Latvia after four years of presidency.
During and after the 2016 pre-election campaign, some Latvian politicians expressed concern about the development of Latvia's relations with the United States. After these four years, is it clear whether there was a basis for this worry?
I think that there were more concerns about the development of not just Latvia, but all transatlantic relations - within the framework of the European Union and the United States, also NATO. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Donald Trump did not shy away from making loud statements - scarcely anyone missed how he questioned the guarantees of NATO Article 5 (specifically in question about the Baltic states) and how loudly he thought that Crimea could be recognized as a part of Russia, as well as statements about human rights, freedom of the press and predictions about his potential allies in foreign policy caused both confusion and, yes, a sense of instability. Incidentally, shortly after Trump publicly questioned NATO's Article 5 guarantees regarding the Baltic States, the newly elected next President, Joe Biden, paid an unscheduled visit to Latvia to "put out the fire" in some extent and appease the allies, reminding that that the US still considers NATO Article 5 binding.
When it comes to international politics, Trump's presidency is quite ambiguous. Trump's glorifying rhetoric about Putin as an outstanding leader raised questions about whether the United States would continue its sanctions policy against Russia, and here the Republican Congressmen did a good job, ensuring that sanctions could only be lifted with a congressional mandate. This ruled out any trade opportunities on this issue and paved the way for active parliamentary diplomacy during these years.
His refusal to engage with the EU, insisting on the desire to establish bilateral relations - which, for example, in the area of trade is not simply done with EU member states - as well as the ambiguous opinions regarding the US president among EU member states also divided the EU in this regard. Looking honestly at the last few years, it would not be a lie to say that transatlantic relations reached their lowest point during Trump's presidency.
What did you hope from Trump's presidency and did not receive or, on the contrary, did receive?
Of course, the EU's relations with the United States, which I mentioned earlier, were very important, as well as Trump's attitude towards NATO, obviously, it was important for us so that the Baltic region was not forgotten. There were all sorts of moments, but concerns about Trump's pre-election rhetoric about NATO and how it could all harm the security of the Baltic states and Ukraine proved insubstantial. On the contrary, during Trump, US security cooperation with Ukraine only intensified. The presence of NATO and the United States has never been more notable in the Baltics, and a Baltic defense plan was developed during this presidency. If we look back at the Trump presidency from the point of view of Latvia's national interests, we are clearly winners. Especially taking into account the priority of Latvia's foreign policy, which has been defense and security since 2014. There is an enhanced battle group in Latvia, which already includes soldiers from ten countries. Admittedly, Trump's rather extraordinary approach shook the other NATO partners, reminding them of the need to invest in their own and collective defense - it must be appreciated!
There is another side. Unfortunately, the US President's policy of isolationism proved a familiar axiom: nature does not love emptiness, and space does not remain empty for long. With the departure of the United States from a region, no vacuum is created - there is a reorganization of the centers of power, where we often see China and Russia. I would have liked the US President to continue to strengthen the transatlantic relationships established more than 70 years ago and the principles that underpin this cooperation - but instead we have seen something like a trade war and the US's withdrawal from regionally and globally important agreements - special mention should be made of the Iran nuclear deal and the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.
But Trump's promises and most of his work were focused on home affairs - on the Americans, on his constituents.Therefore, they would be able to answer this question much better.
What do you expect from the Joe Biden-led United States?
I look forward to a respectful, dialogue-based relationship with the transatlantic partners, both within the EU and within NATO. To some extent, this relationship needs to be rebuilt, and we need to agree again on the principles and vision that unite us in areas such as climate change, relations with China and a number of other issues where one person in the battlefield is not a warrior. I hope that this marks the end of the path towards isolationism, because we will only be able to solve today's biggest challenges multilaterally.