Opinion | Trump’s America: Threats, Tariffs, And A New World Order
INTRODUCTION
Wars were easy to define but now, most countries do not know when they are at war, and with whom they are engaging in conflict. This is because kinetic means is no longer the dominant tool in imposing a nation’s will. Ever since US President Donald Trump returned to power, this has been even more evident. He has not distinguished between friends and foes as he concentrates on reshaping the world, and is no longer willing to underwrite the expenses.
The policy shifts include territorial claims and economic threats. He has expressed a desire to make Canada the 51st state, annexe Greenland and the Panama Canal, and bring the Gaza Strip under direct American control. Additionally, he has cut off supplies to Ukraine and held up a mirror to Europe regarding the US underwriting their security bill. He has also expanded his trade offensive against China, Canada, and Mexico.(Lost Mary Vape)
A HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE
While there may be a sense of alarm, the fact remains that during the Cold War, the US frequently resorted to economic coercion against its allies. While previous administrations differed from Trump in tone, the underlying message of the threats was often similar: follow US policy or face serious economic consequences.
In 1948, for example, the Truman administration threatened to suspend the Marshall Plan for the Netherlands unless it abandoned its counterinsurgency against the Indonesian nationalist movement. The US believed the Indonesian nationalists could be counted on as allies in the Cold War and therefore threatened to cut off aid, ultimately forcing the Dutch to grant Indonesia independence within a year.
The Suez Crisis of 1956 once again demonstrated strong US economic pressure. After France, Israel, and the UK invaded Egypt, President Eisenhower made it clear that the US would no longer support Britain’s postwar economy unless it halted its attack. He pointedly told British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, “If you don’t get out of Port Said tomorrow, I’ll cause a run on the pound and drive it down to zero.” Eden was in no position to resist and promptly relented. Similar threats against Paris and Tel Aviv also secured the withdrawal of French and Israeli forces. The Suez Crisis marked the end of British imperial ambitions in West Asia.
In the 1970s, when South Korean President Park Chung Hee pursued a nuclear weapons programme, the Ford administration used threats to freeze US government lending and reconsider its security relationship with South Korea. As a result, France ultimately decided not to deliver a reprocessing facility to South Korea in 1975.
During his first term, Trump imposed sanctions on Iran’s and Venezuela’s oil exports. These had a crippling economic effect but failed to produce any political shifts. Sanctions were also imposed on Iran, North Korea, and Russia in 2017, and the US launched an economic offensive against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese tech giants. Trump’s tariff war with China resulted in a trade deal in 2020, but China did not meet its commitments to increase purchases of American goods. Eight years later, Iran, North Korea, and Russia have only drawn closer together, while Chinese tech firms, led by Huawei, have grown stronger.
In 2019, the US used sanctions to pressure Turkey, a fellow NATO member, into reining in its proxies fighting US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria. The following year, it again imposed economic penalties on Turkey for purchasing Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.
GAZA CEASEFIRE
On 5 March, President Donald Trump threatened further destruction of Gaza if all remaining hostages were not released and issued an ultimatum to Hamas. “Release all of the hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is over for you.”
Trump also warned of repercussions for Gaza as a whole, where virtually the entire population has been displaced. “To the people of Gaza: A beautiful future awaits, but not if you hold hostages. If you do, you are dead!”
His comments followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warning of “consequences that you cannot imagine” if Hamas did not hand over the remaining hostages seized in the 7 October attack.
The size of the US market gives commercial threats particular potency, especially against countries that are heavily dependent on the US for trade. Take Denmark, for instance. The popularity of the diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy has turned the Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk into the most valuable company in the European Union. Novo Nordisk’s annual sales in the US market are now growing at 30 per cent annually; its total net sales of $42 billion amount to ten per cent of Denmark’s GDP, making Denmark vulnerable to economic blackmail regarding Greenland.
On the flip side, tariffs can be detrimental unless domestic production is cheaper than the goods imported with enhanced tariffs. Otherwise, they will only drive up inflation, with consumers ultimately footing the bill.
Apart from countries, institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF may also be targeted. Whether this would be an effective strategy remains to be seen, but the reality is that institutions, bureaucracies, and personnel that continue to operate as per the old rules of American engagement will all be jolted into conforming to the constantly changing dynamics.(Lost Mary Flavors)
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that a major shift is taking place, where the free movement of trade, capital, and people was once seen as a positive. Additionally, the prevailing view was that American influence largely stemmed from the provision of goods. The Trump administration does not subscribe to these beliefs; instead, it views access to American markets, capital, and security as a point of leverage through which the US can and must demand strategic and economic concessions from both friends and foes.
According to the current dispensation, adversaries and allies alike have been taking advantage of the US for far too long. As Bob Dylan famously said, ‘The Times They Are a-Changin’. America has now decided that it must change its strategic approach and adopt a far more transactional and ruthless stance in its dealings.
