Gordon L. Weil
Donald Trump set his highest priority foreign policy
objectives: reducing or eliminating the U.S. trade deficit, ending the war
between Russia and Ukraine and resolving the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians in Gaza.
He promised early results and took swift action once in
office. He has failed, thus far at
least, on all three.
On trade, Trump misused emergency legislation to impose high
tariffs to virtually all countries for trade in goods. “I’m using trade to settle scores and to make
peace,” he said. Settling scores means
eliminating unfavorable trade balances, which he claims were intentionally
caused by other countries. After that, Trump’s
version of peace would presumably prevail.
He believed he could settle scores painlessly. Foreign
suppliers would absorb the impact of the tariffs. They would pay the tariffs,
increasing foreign revenues flowing to the U.S. Treasury. If they raised their prices to cover the tariffs,
higher cost American manufacturers could regain market share.
He did not count on retaliation and resistance from
others. He resisted accepting that
end-use customers would pay for the tariffs. He ignored the effect of
retaliation on essential American imports. And he did not take account of the
impact of his constant tariff changes on corporate investing and consumer
confidence.
But retaliation came from China and Canada, both providers
of essential imports. Retail prices began to increase. The stock market sank as tariffs rose. Partners began to diversify their trade away from
the U.S., losing confidence in the reliability of American policy. The dollar as the world standard wobbled. Trump backed off.
As for Ukraine, Trump had boasted that he could settle the
conflict in a day. That would have to
mean the full and immediate surrender of Ukraine to the Russians, resulting
from a cutoff of U.S. support.
Trump thinks little of Ukraine. His first impeachment was
caused by his attempt to force Ukraine President Zelenskyy to dig up evidence against
Hunter Biden. He knew nothing of the
centuries-old effort by Russia to suppress Ukraine, even going so far as
starvation, or of Putin’s failure to keep earlier “peace” agreements.
He believed that Russia would ultimately overpower Ukraine, which should, in effect, surrender to prevent the unnecessary loss of life. But Ukraine and powerful European allies understood that Putin would not respect a settlement and was trying to relaunch Soviet-style domination.
With or without the U.S., Ukraine would resist no matter the
cost. When Trump realized he was dealing
with two, not one, strong-willed forces, he essentially abandoned his peacemaking,
potentially leaving the defense of Ukraine to itself and its European allies.
After the Hamas attack on Israel, Trump fully backed the
Israeli response. But Israel gradually went
beyond a proportional response. It seeks
to take over Gaza, the Hamas home base, on the way to complete domination of Palestine. Trump offered the fantastic prospect of turning
the territory into an American seaside resort after expelling the Palestinians.
As the harshness of Israeli actions became apparent, sympathy
grew for the target Arab populations. Critics
of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians could find themselves labelled as
antisemitic by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Trump’s supporters.
Netanyahu stepped up his inhumane pressure on Gaza,
eventually starving many there. Israel’s
international support faded. Even Trump responded to the starvation and
increased both his pressure on Israel and his distance from it. Some Israelis warned the nation could become
an international pariah.
Trump had bet on Israel, but slowly came to understand the
advantages of improved links with Arab states and the disadvantages of giving
Netanyahu unconditional support. His
peacemaking on behalf of Israel turned into dealmaking with the Arab nations,
with Israel excluded.
Trump’s policies have failed. Tariffs could not be drastically raised. Ukraine and Russia would fight on. Israel would prolong the Gaza War.
Trump may yet turn all this around.
He should roll back his across-the-board effort to “settle
scores” and negotiate individual accords with major trading partners. Top priority should go to Mexico, Canada and,
if possible, China. Each accord must be objectively screened for its potential
domestic impact, and deficits must be accepted as a fact of life.
On Ukraine, the U.S. should join with Europe to tighten sanctions
on Russia and let Putin know that Ukraine will have long-term support until a
ceasefire and negotiations without any preconditions take place.
Joining also with the Europeans, the U.S. should make clear
that a two-state Israel-Palestine solution must be adopted, no matter how difficult
that would be. The rebuilding of Gaza
and its society should begin under a newly elected Palestinian Authority. The U.S, could be the economic partner of
Israel and Arab countries in creating a truly regional economy.
These may seem like unrealistically lofty objectives. But Trump has the potential to surprise and influence
the world by changing course.
