The Upsides Of Trump Policy

US President Donald Trump shocked the world last month with a phalanx of executive decrees of different hues and stripes which in a way, could threaten the present-day global systems. He targeted both the allies and adversaries and made hard options to deal with consequent uncertain situations. It looks like Donald Trump has taken some of his strategies from Ronald Reagan who during his presidency insisted on dealing with adversaries from the position of strength. On June 12, 1987, in one of his most famous Cold War speeches, President Ronald Reagan challenged Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down” the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the allegedly repressive Communist era in a divided Germany. 

With the wall as a backdrop, President Reagan declared to a West Berlin crowd in 1987 called upon his Soviet counterpart Secretary General Gorbachev, if you seek peace — if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe — if you seek liberalization: come here, to this gate, open this gate.  Soon the Berlin Wall tumbled down leading to the collapse of the communist regime in the then USSR and Eastern Europe. Gorbachev, who had been in office since 1985, stepped down from his post as Soviet ruler in 1991. 

Turning point

Reagan, who served two terms as president, from 1981 to 1989, died on June 5, 2004, at the age of 93. Gorbachev died on August 30, 2022, at the age of 91. Reagan’s ‘Tear Down This Wall’ speech challenging Soviet leader Gorbachev marked a turning point of the cold war. Likewise, President Donald Trump’s threatening statements and executive decrees are interpreted by some analysts as nothing but brinkmanship ploys to derive maximum concessions in several cases from bilateral or multilateral engagements to the US advantage, if not the mutual ones. The Atlantic Daily - a paper critiquing the Trump presidency and his hardball tactics - carried a write-up titled “A handbook for dealing with Trump”. 

The article mentions that salvos of provocative exchanges between Trump and the head of the governments of the neighbouring countries have been aimed at ultimately winning concessions for the US through a resort of threatening tactics. In his above-mentioned article, David A. Graham cautions “If you’re a world leader and you’ve been threatened by the American president, first, take some consolation because you’re not alone to be threatened. The first two weeks of the second Trump administration have seen the White House trying to wring policy concessions from allies and adversaries both near and far.” 

Pitfalls 

Graham advises that simply ignoring Donald Trump is not an option. The United States wields so much power that even if you think the president is irrational or bluffing, you must acknowledge and respond in time. Any leader must calibrate a response that will speak not only to Trump but also to their domestic audience. As heads of states scramble for the best responses, we’ve seen several different approaches. Each has clear upsides — but also some pitfalls but each has meaning, rationale and impact. This article takes examples referring to Graham’s article from some of the responses from such countries as Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Denmark to Trump which have resulted in positive consequences for both sides. 

Let us cite an example from the exchange between Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro. On January 26, President Petro posted a message announcing that he’d turned back two American military planes full of deportees. “We will receive our citizens in civilian airplanes, without them being treated as delinquents,” he wrote. “Colombia must be respected.” Trump promptly threatened huge tariffs; Petro fired back, threatening tariffs of his own and saying, “You will never dominate us.” In the end, Petro agreed to accept military flights but also got assurances from the U.S. that Colombians would not be handcuffed or photographed and would be escorted by Department of Homeland Security staff, not troops. 

According to Graham, Trump doesn’t like conflict, so he might blink. While the presidents sniped at each other, their respective aides were hammering out an agreement. He also sometimes respects a bold, brassy response. If Trump had gone through with 25 or 50 per cent tariffs, Colombia’s economy would have been devastated. It’s a high-risk play. President Trump’s fiery exchanges with the Mexican, Panamanian and Danish leaders provide other instances of similar import. Though Trump looked hawkish employing intimidating tactics during his first term, he did sue for peace. It is expected that Trump will help end the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis despite war rhetoric and intimidating tactics. 

Compromise

Mexico, Panama, and Denmark aren’t powerful enough to fight Trump outright, so they’re looking for a way to compromise. The White House announced large tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo announced that she had struck a deal with Trump to avoid tariffs. “Mexico will reinforce the northern border with 10,000 members of the National Guard immediately, to stop drug trafficking from Mexico to the United States, in particular fentanyl,” she posted on X (formerly Twitter). “The United States commits to work to stop the trafficking of high-powered weapons to Mexico.” That’s a concrete commitment from Mexico and a rather vague one from the U.S., but it allows Mexico to escape tariffs and save some face. 

Elsewhere, Panama is promising to not renew an infrastructure agreement with China after Trump threatened to seize the Panama Canal. And Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is offering the U.S. a chance to expand its presence on Greenland, even as she says the island is not for sale. “Why works because Trump is fundamentally transactional, and in each of these cases he’s getting a win without having to do anything besides issue a threat", writes Graham. 

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)