A country is reneging on its pledges to international agreements and organizations, defying sovereign commitments, estranging from international development programs, closing its borders to foreign nationals and products, and its leader is passing hundreds of executive orders in a day, undoing all the good work done by the previous regimes and butchering diplomatic norms by having spats with visiting heads of the states on live TV.
Trump may not be all wrong about desperately wanting to protect the economy from any kind of external onslaught.
This country isn’t Mexico, Eritrea, or Burkina Faso. It isn’t Afghanistan (that it once occupied), or South Sudan, or Venezuela. It is arguably the greatest power of the postwar world – the United States of America. Its controversial leader is Donald Trump and the international agreements and organizations that he has mercilessly stepped over include USAID and the Paris Agreement. The affected development program is USAID and the ‘spat-reference’ is that of the humiliation of the ambitious Ukrainian Prime Minister Zelensky (who the American President thinks is disrespectful, and “not even such a good comedian”).
I spoke to two analysts recently; a former high-ranking diplomat and a scholar specializing in international relations. I’d start with the comment I received from the international relations expert first, she remarked that ‘Zelensky acted like the leader of a nation, while Trump appeared as someone drunk-on power’. I feel urged to dispute her opinion on Zelensky acting like a statesman, but she isn’t quite wrong about Trumpian arrogance that is fiercely unmistakable and now in everyone’s face.
The diplomat on the other hand, was prompted to speak on the motivations that are drawing Starmer towards an apparently pro-Zelenskyian approach. His was a very nuanced take: “Starmer can neither afford to antagonize the EU, nor the US. A cease-fire is OK as it antagonizes no one. A peace deal, however, is a no-no for the EU. But a peace deal is not on the cards. Ukraine will remain a la Kashmir, a la Korea divided. So, Starmer won’t have to choose”. Trump may have broken the stalemate on the Ukraine issue, and as one could argue, protected short-term American interests, but he did break a few hearts too.
Trump is definitely on a roll: he’s calling world leaders one by one, reprimanding them, and handing down casual insults: Modi, Starmer, and Zelensky are amongst the first batch of leaders that were called names, mocked for things as petty as the dress they wore and returned home with a box of tariff candies. This is saber-rattling of the highest order. Trump 1.0 was known for this but it’s getting worse. One opinion is that Trump is no more the ‘clown’ or the ‘buffoon’ that his critics both within the US and outside thought he was during Trump 1.0. Trump 2.0 is a symbol of America’s hard power and for some, a savior of an economy hijacked by foreign elements and vested interests of an entrenching lobby of Indian and Chinese immigrants.
Trump seems to be the one who would respect opponents who stand up and not bow down to him.
The question that therefore presents before us is whether MAGA, tariffs, politics of hate and isolationism are signs of an arrogant leader’s quest to reassert global supremacy or an outcry of a timid individual hiding his nation’s soft ‘economic’ underbelly. The US may not be losing this economic battle to China; in my opinion, it isn’t. But it has definitely lost ground. It could be a reason for Trump’s frustration with business as usual in the US. His critics might think he is the rookie that they think he is, he may come across as uncouth when dealing with the media or during diplomatic interactions, but he is no stranger to the issues of the American economy.
The world needs to understand and understand this well. His tariffs may lead to inflation and be the cause of the unease American consumers are feeling right now, but one cannot also turn a blind eye to the fiscal cracks that exist in the American economy today. Trump may not be all wrong about desperately wanting to protect the economy from any kind of external onslaught. His way of protecting it though, could end up causing more harm than good.
The US economy benefits from its status as a global leader, but it’s also true that the smaller economies and their emigrants into the US do take the American economy for a ride. The difference between what the US gives to the world and what it takes might still be in America’s favor, but the gap is narrowing down and it should be a cause of concern for an economy with fiscal worries and a threat posed by multipolarity and the rising power of emerging economies. Extending a hand of friendship and making positive diplomatic gestures to Moscow shows weakness and a defeatist urge to look away from conventional emerging market friends like Starmer’s wobbly UK or Modi’s ambitious India.
I have read a few articles that argue that Trumpism opens a window of opportunity for Pakistan. Many of these articles were published during the short span of time between his gratitudinal speech for Pakistan and when the first article portending a travel ban on Pakistan and Afghanistan was published. Those thinking that tariffs on India and Trump singing praises for Pakistan is an automatic invite for Pakistan to become America’s favoured trading partner do not understand how mercurial Trump is, and that he only has permanent interests, not permanent friends on enemies.
Those thinking that tariffs on India and Trump singing praises for Pakistan is an automatic invite for Pakistan to become America’s favored trading partner do not understand how mercurial Trump is.
The cross-section in Pakistan that expected him to walk into office and free former Prime Minister Imran Khan is already battling with the disappointment that Trump is known to cause to those who expected ‘nice’ things from him. While this could be a subject for another piece, foreign policy changes and international relations dynamics do not really open windows of economic opportunities for countries like Pakistan. I’d leave my readers with the question about Pakistan’s capacity to sell any products to the US: “Does Pakistan’s industrial base have the capacity to fulfill any level of import demand from the US even if it is provided unrestrained access to the American markets”.
One mistake that all visiting leaders made was that they walked into the Oval Office with great expectations. Pakistan must not go down the same line – it is best not to expect anything from him and even better if Islamabad does not gesture that it is kneeling down in front of Washington in any way. Trump seems to be the guy who would respect opponents who stand up and not bow down to him.
Pleasantries and diplomatic gestures don’t sit well with him. The mantra of international cooperation is very 1940s now and heads of states engaging with him must stop selling it to Washington. Trump is tired of throwing money at that outmoded prospect. The sooner Islamabad realizes this, the better.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
