Trump Risks Raising Hiccups

American presidency has a precedent that outlines the responsibility of an outgoing president to consult with the incoming president if a major decision were to be taken. The two engage in consultations if any significant measure were to be taken. Or else, the occupant at the White House counts his days for bidding adieu to the premises he served for four, or eight, years. At the outset of second innings at the White House after a hiatus of four years, Donald Trump, the richest and the most powerful country’s executive head, might issue a blanket pardon to those facing charges of violence at the Capitol claiming that the 2020 poll result was rigged against Trump. 

Trump and his close associate, Elon Musk, world’s richest person, combine to make a formidable force. Musk donated $200 million to the Trump campaign committee that also collected from other sources an additional $1.1 billion for the 2024 election chest. In December, Musk set off a stern warning that the US might go bankrupt if due action were not taken on war footing. For the national debt has reached a colossus $36.17 trillion. The situation is fraught with risks of inflicting a financial ruin on the world’s No. 1 superpower. Servicing the debt is a staggering, grinding task, which could only grow worse, if no effective intervention were injected. 

Some sections speculate whether a trade protectionist Trump would evaporate the American policy of open market.  Will the US be an open market for only Americans and their European first cousins? In fact, former President Barack Obama bemoaned at the Democratic Party convention in August: “Our politics have become so polarised these days that all of us across the political spectrum, seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue.” 

Pandora’s Box

Trump’s pattern of rapid-fire statements with sweeping implications might mean ominous signs for the immediate target in particular and the rest in general.  Some worry that he might pick a fight with China, Iran or both. It won’t be easy, though. UK might endorse such action. But the former imperial power is itself a weak force, with only 150,000 armed forces, and banks heavily on the Big Brother on the other side of the Atlantic for support and security guarantees. Some powers thrive on the extremity of polarised politics beyond their borders. 

Three weeks before the date for his inauguration, Trump said the US might have to take control over the Panama Canal and Greenland on grounds of American security concerns and core commercial interests. Was it just an off-the-cuff remark? Perhaps not. Trump, of late, posting suggestions that Canada should become the 51st state of the US, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau serving as the “Governor”. London has chosen not to comment on it, though King Charles is Canada’s formal head of state and appoints a governor-general to represent him in the North American state, which sparsely populated but endowed with vast natural resources.

Trump has been loudly thinking of buying Greenland, whose enormously abundant natural resources attract avaricious attention from foreign forces. Denmark, which looks after Greenland’s foreign and defence affairs, has preferred not to comment on Trump’s “absolute necessity for national security and freedom throughout the world”. Trump’s remarks bring back inconvenient memories of Monroe Doctrine to put at bay Europeans from Latin America, gunboat diplomacy against Japan, and partnership in the opium wars for purely commercial profits at the expense of the Chinese masses.

Prime Minister Mute B. Egede of Greenland’s population of barely 57,000, responded angrily: “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.” Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino reminded that “every square metre of the Panama Canal is part of Panama… Our country’s sovereignty and independence are not negotiable.” Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum reiterated: “Indeed, the Panama Canal belongs to the Panamanians.” Netizens asked what if Britain’s King Charles wanted India back and Russia claimed Alaska back? 

During his first term, Trump called for NATO members to contribute their due to the collective defence instead of relying heavily on the US. In the last several weeks, he has not departed from his policy. To cope with the growing competition for market, he has threatened to impose a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese manufactured electric vehicles. He also promised to impose 25 per cent tariff on all products from next door neighbour Canada. But he seems to have missed the likely backlash such a measure would invite against US trade, industry and market. In his first term, too, he did try imposing high tariffs on some foreign products but not without consequential effects on the US. He had to go easy subsequently. 

Pressure tactics

In Canada’s case, the tariff threat might be a strategy to exert pressure on Ottawa to do substantially more in checking illegal immigrants from the Canadian border to the US. The US-led West faces economic and strategic competitions from the Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea along with many African nations where China has become the largest foreign investor in the new millennium. The new team at the White House might rethink and exercise caution by treating Trump’s recent sweeping remarks on trade, border control, national interests and security concerns as “trial balloons” designed to elicit global feedback on related issues. 

Probably, Trump had a telephone conversation with Putin at his own initiative. News media reports said he asked the Russian leader not to escalate the war in Ukraine. He must have also assured that he would come up with an initiative that should satisfy Moscow and provide relief to the Ukrainian people who have suffered at least 36,000 civilian deaths while 80,000 soldiers have been killed. Some reports claim that Ukraine has suffered as many as 600,000 civilian casualties and the loss of 150,000 troops. Ukraine’s total population is 38 million.

A close associate on Trump’s team, Elon Musk made 23 posts urging King Charles to overthrow United Kingdom’s government led by Labour Prime Minister Keir Starner in December. Britons and their elite have not welcomed or rebuffed the suggestion. Hiccups do not last long; if they do, expert advice is called for. In Trump’s case—at the start of his administration—a serious review by his trusted coterie would be in order to settle ruffled feathers and construct a positive legacy. 

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)