Friends, I'm not crazy about Trump's tariffs against Canada and Mexico, in themselves, but my guess is that they are part and parcel of a broad strategy to realign America's relationship with a host of international "partners" in a way that is more respectful of the interests and sovereignty of the USA. That I can live with, and in fact such an effort is long overdue. And that's the subject of my latest article:
Trump Drops the Hammer on America's Fair-Weather Friends
President Trump's shock and awe tactics against Democrats and the Deep State appear to be bearing fruit, but equally impressive has been his strong, unapologetic stance vis-à-vis other countries, allies and adversaries alike.
Setting the tone in a dramatic way, Trump wasted no time in responding to the refusal of Colombia's socialist president to receive a planeload of deportees. Trump threatened harsh, escalating tariffs as well as other sanctions and penalties, and the Colombian government caved almost instantly. Score one for Trump and Trumpism!
In the days and weeks ahead, a higher stakes battle will play out with the two countries that are, in many respects, our most important allies, neighbors, and trade partners: Canada and Mexico. Trump promised on the campaign trail to raise tariffs on a host of countries, including his bête noire: China. But why target seemingly harmless Canada and Mexico, specifically? He says it's because both are failing to control the flow of illegal migrants and fetanyl across our common borders. He also says that Canada and Mexico don't play fair in terms of trade, and thus they maintain large trade surpluses with the U.S. and drive American companies out of business.
Neither of these justifications is completely off-base, but the problem is that they are very different from one other, and Trump has set down no clear metrics for how Canada and Mexico (or any other country) can avoid tariffs. How much progress has to be made at the border before Trump will rescind his tariffs? How much must Canada and Mexico's trade surpluses be reduced before Trump's ire abates? Are these tariffs, fundamentally, retaliatory, or are they part of a protectionist philosophy that aims to revive American manufacturing, agriculture, and energy production? The answers to these questions, even for Trump's most wholehearted supporters, are obscure, but could this be intentional on Trump's part?
Many analysts believe that the purpose of these tariffs is not to restrict North American trade on a permanent basis, but to prove Trump's seriousness to the likes of Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and Mexican President Sheinbaum. Trump may be angling for substantial concessions from Canada and Mexico, on border enforcement, trade policy, and other issues, that a more conventional American administration would never even dream of asking for. Whether these stiff tariffs would need to remain in place for a day, a week, a month, or a year in order to bring the necessary pressure to bear and make Canada and Mexico crack is hard to say, but the gravity with which these actions are viewed in Ottawa and Mexico City in undeniable. “Business as usual” is frankly no longer an option in North America, whether U.S., Canadian, and Mexican elites like it or not.
And this is why the long-term impact of Trump's international strength/intransigence (depending on your perspective) could be revolutionary: by bending our closest neighbors and erstwhile friends to our will, we will send a message to the entire world that no longer is the United States of America a nation to be trifled with. No longer will we subsidize the defense of half the world without expecting anything in return. No longer will we open up our own markets to all comers, while foreign governments and their corporate allies conspire to freeze out American products and seize control of whole industries. Certainly, no longer will the U.S. accept an unlimited number of migrants in the guise of “refugees” from the four corners of the earth.
Imagine, then, how much easier it will be for President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio to negotiate with China, and Europe, and Russia, and Iran, and North Korea, and countless other nations, friend and foe alike, when the new administration has proven its mettle in a miniature “trade war” with Canada and Mexico. Why, if they aren't already, the Panamanians and the Danes must be quaking in their boots!
The smart money says that the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico aren't really about Canada and Mexico at all – they're about transplanting a spine into America itself, which, under President Biden, so conspicuously lacked one. Thanks to President Trump, the USA is no longer a nation to be taken for granted, derided, and abused. For the 77 million people who voted for Trump, all they can say is: “It's about time!”
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmakers show on WLEA/WYSL.
***
In other news, there's an argument to be made that Trump's approach to Colombia, Canada, and Mexico is redolent of the consciously erratic and blustering negotiating style of President Nixon. In other words, Trump is in esteemed company!
The dastardly Dems are electing new leaders, and so far it's hard to read the tea leaves and ascertain what shape the Democratic Party is going to take in the next four years. "Attack Trump!" is the easy choice, and I'm sure the Dems will do plenty of that, but the evidence is that those relentless assaults based on TDS have proved counterproductive. What else have they got in their playbook? We shall see.
Vice-President Vance continues to hold out hope that the U.S. will end up in control of Greenland, as do I! The real question is why the U.S. didn't secure possession of Greenland decades ago, when the Cold War was raging and the Arctic was a key theater in our incipient conflict with the Soviets.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I agree with what I see to be your conclusion in your essay above. In addition to making very obvious the new parameters within which the US will now closely consider foreign influences (eg. border management enabling, purposefully or not - and I do not think Canada does so, to the extent it may do so, with intent - invasion of the US by substantial or personal threats); in addition to that, DJT is demonstrating to the world that such lax enforcement inevitably triggers a decisive popular reaction in the U.S. , demonstrated by our empowerment of DJT.
ReplyDeleteNo country has ever displayed the moral restraint shown by modern America in its exercise of its incalculable power. We saved the world from the terribly intimidating evil of 20th century inhuman totalitarianism with our triumphant resolution to do so. And as General Powell once said "we only ask enough ground to bury our dead". We are the "flag which sets you free" and history proves us so.
Let unapologetic conviction of that reality be the rudder of our foreign policy. Exercise of power is the way of the world and we have done it in a manner unprecedented in its humanity. None of our detractors, foreign or domestic , can decisively gainsay that. With that as his rationale, let DJT pursue a forward policy with the world.
Dr. Waddy from Jack : To my knowledge, in professional military circles in the late 20th century the Soviet threat to the North Atlantic consisted mainly in its multitude of submarines . Even in WWII we secured Iceland rather, in order to mitigate was at many times in WWII, a truly harrowing submarine threat. True, long range Soviet "Backfire" bombers were much feared but they would not have required Greenland as a base. And in a nuclear era, a few nukes might have sufficed to vaporize any Soviet bases in Greenland. A world expansive China was not a factor at that time.
ReplyDeleteToo, Soviet -American relations were undergoing many many faceted changes in the late 20th century and perhaps an American acquisition of Greenland might have strengthened Soviet hard liners. I've often thought that had I gone into a coma in 1988 and awakened in say, 1993 to hear that the Soviet Union had fallen, I would have said"how many millions were killed in World War III?" The diplomacy of President Reagan, Saint John Paul II and courageous Poland might have worked a miracle against which otherwise unbearably incensed Soviet thugs might have worked catastrophe.