STATUS OF TRUMP’S MAIN FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVES

NAFTA REVISED TO THE USMCA—accomplished with bipartisan support, without Speaker Pelosi it would not have passed.  Was NAFTA completely revised?  No, it didn’t need to be, but it did need to be updated. Its main goal was to integrate Mexico into the highly developed world of the U.S. and Canada.  It did that. Mexico went from an underdeveloped nation to one of the top twenty in the world, currently ranking 15^th and that is the main reason why few illegals come from there to the U.S. Here’s a reasonable analysis of NAFTA’s pros and cons: https://www.thebalance.com/nafta-pros-and-cons-3970481

Another analysis comes from: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/nafta-and-usmca-weighing-impact-north-american-trade.

And, finally, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/business/economy/usmca-deal.html

Trump can claim ½ credit for USMCA and Pelosi the other ½.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS—accurate figures are not easy to come by since most who are illegal don’t want to be known, still try this: https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-are-in-the-united-states-and-who-are-they/

It is important to note the main source of illegals since 2010 has not been from those coming into the U.S. illegally, it has been those who have overstayed their visa requirements.  Suzanne, my wife and I, know how this works. Trump’s wall and its supporters either are unaware of this or choose to ignore it. I’m not going to touch the issues related to the wall except to say there was no serious security threat that required it.  It is significant that when the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress they did not fund it.

For Trump’s promises and the realities they face try this: https://www.brookings.edu/research/hitting-the-wall-on-immigration-campaign-promises-clash-with-policy-realities/  Most of the land on the TX side of the border is privately owned and Texans are very loath to accept eminent domain. https://www.revealnews.org/article/this-land-is-our-land-many-property-owners-wont-sell-for-trumps-wall/

Trump has had part of his wall built, however.  On the other hand, he has made it much more difficult for asylum seekers to get here.

NORTH KOREA—While Trump’s efforts gained much publicity, little of substance has transpired as a result: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/11/north-korea-decries-stunted-us-ties-after-historic-summit.  It appears his efforts granted legitimacy to the North Korean dictator with nothing to gain from it except photo ops.  It has not stopped North Korea from testing its weapons. It does not appear that Trump’s objectives have been met.

CHINA—Again, a great deal of publicity but not that much of substance has been accomplished.  The Chinese Communist Party was formed with a goal of never again agreeing to “unequal” treaties and Trump’s efforts appear to have convinced China that that is what he has in mind.

America First clashes with Chinese First.  https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45899310.  Some progress was made: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a-timeline/.  But: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/economy/us-china-trade-war-resume-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html

Another look: https://www.ft.com/content/6124beb8-5724-11ea-abe5-8e03987b7b20

Trump has shifted to re-election mode and believes it is advantageous to attack China’s reputation.   That is not going over well in China.  He seems to believe the U.S. alone can bring China to heel, but that won’t happen.  Again, he has no international support for his efforts.  The first phase deal is but a start, yet it is a start.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is breathtaking in its reach, and its implications.  Suzanne and I have been on the Old Silk Road and got some of the implications of this vast new initiative.  https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative

TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)—The TPP was designed originally in large part to deal effectively with China, but Trump withdrew from it arguably because it was negotiated by Obama and not whether or not it was a good idea.  https://asiasociety.org/video/tpp-current-state-trans-pacific-partnership.  By withdrawing, now Americans must pay TPP tariffs.  That has been mitigated some by a new trade deal between Japan and the U.S. The TPP is working well for those in it. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11120#:~:text=On%20October%207%2C%202019%2C%20after,expansions%20to%20improve%20market%20access.

Trump’s withdrawal has not aided American interests.

The E.U.—For all the emphasis on China, this is the main economic relationship for the U.S.  See: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/

The E.U. offered to work with the U.S. to deal with China but were rejected by Trump.  So, the E.U. negotiated its own strategic deal with China: http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/china/docs/eu-china_2020_strategic_agenda_en.pdf

The E.U. also offered to work with the U.S. to improve the Iran deal, but Trump also rejected that offer and despite the serious efforts of Macron and Merkel, Trump withdrew from the Iran deal.

Trump’s relations with the E.U. has not been helped by his praise for Hungary’s dictator Orban: https://balkaninsight.com/2019/08/05/why-trumps-role-model-is-hungarys-viktor-orban/

This fits with a pattern of Trump’s praise for dictators such as for China’s Xi, Russia’s Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jung-un, the Philippines Duterte, Egypt’s el Sissi, Turkey’s Erdogan (a phone call with Erdogan led to a precipitous withdrawal of US troops that stood between Turkish and Kurdish forces leading to a bloodletting on the Kurdish side); and the long dead Mussolini—see Madeline Albright’s book Fascism..  He has been publicly proud of their praise of him.  By the same token, he has been known for criticizing democratically elected leaders such as Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, and others.  According to Carl Bernstein’s sources, he has been especially obnoxious personally to former PM May and Chancellor Merkel.

His relations with the EU have not improved.

WITHDRAWING FROM THE IRAN DEAL: This simply has not worked out as Trump had imagined it would.  He has had no support from any of the other signatories of this deal for his withdrawal and its consequences.  https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-status-iran-nuclear-agreement

Trump complained the deal did not include provisions to halt Iran’s development of ICBMs, but neither Russia nor China were supportive of such provisions.  Russia had already sold its state-of- the-art antimissile system to Iran and China is Iran’s main weapons supplier.  He also complained the deal did not touch Iran’s penchant for proxy wars.  True, but the signatories could not agree on doing that.  Why not? Iran’s support for Assad’s regime suited Russia’s efforts to keep him in power.  In actuality, Iran’s commitment to proxy wars has increased since U.S. withdrawal from the deal.  Pompeo’s 12 demands of Iran are perceived by Iran to mean forced regime change and that just isn’t going to happen.  Even if it did, the U.S. might eliminate the mullahs, but the power would then go to the Iranian Rev Guards and all would suffer from that.  Iran’s domestic critics are not united and lack a common agenda. 

At any rate, Iran has a host of internal problems that existed before Trump and have only gotten worse.  Iran was not a good candidate for investments and trade.  Iran is not an existential threat to the U.S. or Israel.  The main threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons would be its Sunni rivals would then want theirs. 

Having unilaterally withdrawn from the Deal; and applying severe sanctions on Iran have not achieved Trump’s objectives and don’t seem to be likely to in the future.

OVERTHROWING THE MADURO REGIME.  No doubt about it, the Maduro dictatorship is wretched, but Trump’s efforts have not been nor are they likely to be successful.  Why not?  Support for the regime by Russia, China, Iran and Cuba.  Trump’s recognition of Juan Guaido as the actual President of Venezuela have not been successful.  Juan has been unable to gain the internal support of enough potent interest groups to carry out his potential presidency.  Nor, is he likely to do that.  The good news is that Trump has wisely avoided military intervention.

NATO—Trump has consistently complained about the relative lack of European countries as members of NATO.  He has a point there, but they agreed already in 2014 for all to meet the 2% of GNP spending each should supply by 2024 as a result of Putin’s acquisition of the Crimea.  He tried to get them to increase their giving but got in return only a recommitment to their existing agreement.  Further, see: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-03-20/nato-thriving-spite-trump.

Recently, he, unilaterally without consulting NATO, began the process of withdrawing 9,500 troops from Germany.  This naturally reinforces doubts about his commitment to NATO.  And, there are good reasons for those doubts: https://qz.com/1585911/does-the-us-need-nato/

This fits a pattern of Trump just not liking international treaties and organizations that the U.S. has been the main party within them.   He appears to want only bilateral agreements where possible.  That would undermine the post WWII world the U.S. created.  He has withdrawn from a significant number of international agreements already.  He has significantly frayed our relations with NATO.

Overall, there is a mixture of plusses and minuses in his initiatives.

It is still hard to believe such a half assed attempt was made to overthrow Venezuela’s awful, wretched government.  But, one was made not long ago.

It has been compared, naturally, with the ill fated Bay of Pigs operation.  But, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison.  The Bay of Pigs operation was designed under Ike and carried out by CIA backing under JFK.  It had over 1,400 Cuban exiles accompanied by a handful of American agents with the purpose of overthrowing Castro’s regime.  It had dreadful consequences for those involved and later.

But, this recent effort had nowhere near that kind of numbers and support from the U.S. It did have the signed backing of Juan Guaido, who has had Trump’s support as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela.  Trump’s backing has not worked for multiple reasons. 

What we can say is that it is unlikely that the Trump administration agreed to this effort.  However, the Trump administration created the kind of atmosphere that encouraged it to carry out “Operation Gideon” which maybe had around 60 armed supporters.  Maybe the Trump administration knew something about it and did nothing to stop it.

But, it miserably failed.  Dictator Maduro, who reportedly gets instructions in part from his very dead predecessor and from the long ago dead Simon Bolivar—there has been a Bolivar Cult there, had infiltrated it, knew about it, and his admin easily put it down. It was more farce than a serious effort to get rid of Maduro.

But, even if this had had U.S. support, it was unlikely to have succeeded contrary to Pompeo’s claims.  Why?  Maduro has support from Cuba (whose secret police has trained his and have a significant presence in Venezuela), Russia, Iran, and China.  Those are formidable obstacles to an overthrow being successful. Their support has been perhaps decisive in helping Maduro’s Venezuela with dealing with Covid.  They have advisors present in multiple capacities.

An American invasion, as threatened by Trump, could kill some of those advisors.  That could lead to direct conflicts we do not want or need.  Iran has been sending oil tankers to help Maduro out as well as a way to get around the Trump administration sanctions on the Maduro regime.  Indeed, Iran and Venezuela have developed a strategic partnership.

With all of this there is a long history of American interventions in Latin America that have harmed our relations.   Against this background, this latest attempt bears resemblance to the “filibustering” expeditions pre-Civil War in Central America and the Caribbean.  As a reminder for the readers, these were private military attempts to subvert and hopefully rule a Central American nation without U.S. government support.

Narcisso Lopez, starting in 1849, led three efforts to boot the Spanish out of Cuba.  None worked; the Spanish captured the perps in the last one and had them executed.   This all led to the Ostend Manifesto as a circular written effort by American diplomats in Europe to encourage the U.S. government to buy Cuba and if that didn’t work perhaps to take it.  That died still born.

The most successful, for a time, was William Walker’s efforts to take and rule Nicaragua. He succeeded and his rule was recognized officially by President William Pierce in 1856.  His rule ran afoul of Cornelius Vanderbilt who had his rule destroyed.  Walker tried two more times and on the coast of Honduras the Brits captured him and executed him by firing squad. 

The Civil War brought an end to these escapades. But, this latest effort in Venezuela reminds me of them.  All in all, this history has not led to a good U.S. reputation in Latin America. 

What now?  Maduro’s regime is in serious trouble.   Mismanagement, corruption including collusion with the drug cartels, have all led Russia to reconsider its support.  If Russia backs out, his regime becomes vulnerable.  But, does the opposition have “the right stuff” to take advantage of these issues and lead to a successful domestic (U.S. aided) coup?  Maybe, but they didn’t do well at it before and there’s no guarantee they will. 

An American “invasion” would be unwise to say the least.  It would almost certainly lead many who don’t like the regime at all, to resist the American led invasion.  It is unlikely to get Congressional and American public approval.  Better to bet on a domestic takeover.  It might succeed, but don’t count on it.   A Bay of Piglets was not the way to get it done.  What would you recommend?

OK, reader, let’s assume that you were forcibly taken from your family and home to a residential school by age 6. There, you would not be able to speak your native language or practice your native religion. You couldn’t wear your traditional clothing and would be thoroughly regimented. You would not be able to leave the school voluntarily. What actually took place in your new residence and school would be mostly kept from public view. The public would be told that you are being well taken care of and are learning useful vocational skills. You are not allowed to complain about what happens to you. The government is finding ways to settle people on the lands so long used by your families.

You are at a “reeducation” camp. You are being forced to assimilate; or, to put it another way, forced to participate in the genocide of your culture.

So, who are you and where are you?

Your choices are: (1) boarding schools for Native Americans; or, (2) boarding schools for Uighurs currently living in Xinjiang Province in China.

Actually, you could be at either one. Maybe that helps explain why there isn’t that much outrage over what is happening to the Uighurs in China? Whenever the U.S. complains, which it seldom does, about what China is doing to its Uighurs, the Chinese government will bring up what the U.S. did with its Native Americans. V.P. Pence and Sec. of State Pompeo have condemned Chinese policies towards the Uighurs. But, has President Trump applied sanctions on China for these policies?

No. He has several times expressed praise for China’s strongman Xi Jinping without expressing reservations about Xi’s human rights abuses which have become worse over time.

The Chinese will cite that there have been terrorist activities carried out by Uighurs. And, there have been as part of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a group that uses violence to set up an independent East Turkistan. That movement is considered by the U.N. Security Council and by the U.S. government, post 9/11, as a terrorist organization. One could argue that the U.S. and the U.N. have provided the Chinese government with a rationale for their above described policy though, in fact, there have been but a few Uighurs who have conducted terrorist attacks.

Well, how about the “hostiles” among our Native Americans who resisted, by force, being placed on reservations on land that no white man wanted?

Are there significant differences between the two choices noted above? Yes, (1) the Chinese have implanted a thorough going surveillance system to track residents wherever they go using facial recognition cameras and DNA samples tied to a database. But, those kinds of technology were unknown in the later 19th century in the U.S. (2) The Native Americans were NOT U.S. citizens whereas the Uighurs are Chinese citizens. But, does Chinese citizenship entitle the Uighurs to anything like our Bill of Rights? Only in theory. (3) the Uighurs are Muslims while the Native Americans had their own religions. (4) The ETIM is tied to terrorist groups outside of China including the Taliban and Al Qaeda whereas the Native Americans had no such support.

Given our own history with Native Americans and more recently with those detained near our border, what should President Trump do about the human rights abuses carried out against the Uighurs?

Take a look at the map of the overlapping claims in the South China Sea.  Why should we pay attention?

For one, close to 30% of all of the world’s trade goes through it.  Most are aware of the importance of the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, Gibraltar, and the Strait of Hormuz; however, not so many know about the strategic location of the Strait of Malacca which helps make Singapore a wealthy city state.

Secondly, it is the second most important choke point for the transport of oil, the first being the Strait of Hormuz; yet, it is first for two thirds of internationally traded LNG (liquified natural gas).  This Strait is VITAL for Japan, Korea, AND China as so much of their energy comes via that route.  It is the shortest sea route between Persian Gulf suppliers and key Asian markets. China has astoundingly built islands from scratch from the ocean floor with facilities such as air fields and port facilities potentially to control the sea routes.

Third, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates that the South China Sea holds about 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, most of which lie along the margins of the South China Sea rather than under disputed islets and reefs.  See the map provided to see the locations of the artificially made Paracel Islands and the Spratley Islands. An old principle of real estate ownership applies here: location, location, location. How does their location impact the region’s trade?

All of this highlights how important it is to have dominant sea power located there, thanks to the dictums set down by Alfred T. Mahan so many years ago. Thus far, that sea power is in the hands of the U.S. Navy though China is enhancing their’s with the apparent goal of surpassing the U.S. Navy in that region. China is not yet committed to building a world wide high seas navy, only to have a navy to protect their interests in the South China Sea and Djibouti in the Middle East.

Actually, as the second map discloses, some claims have been solved.  It is the rest that are problematic. In 2016, a South China Sea arbitration tribunal of the Hague attempted to resolve China’s claims to resources and ruled that their claims were incompatible with the UN Convention on the Sea’s ruling of that region’s high seas open to all.    China has yet to accept the results. How that is to be resolved is still unclear.

Finally, the Strait of Malacca IS essential for China’s Belt and Road Initiative to be carried out.  Will China attempt to control it?  And, if so, what can be done about that?  China may intend to control the South China Sea; but, the Strait of Malacca is probably out of its reach for some time.  At the very least, we can expect growing tensions within the South China Sea between the various nations, especially China, laying claim to substantial portions of it. 

It is a potential flash point. What do you think can be done about their claims?

Our relations with China have become increasingly complicated since Xi has acquired more power. He has instituted more of a regulatory state, BUT there has also been a significant growth in entrepreneurship. Their small businesses on the whole are doing better than what ours have experienced in the Covid-19 crisis. It is a countervailing power to Xi’s power acquisition. There is an inbuilt tension between the two.


Trump’s main interest has been in trade but that distracts from much larger trends at work. His efforts to blame China for the covid-19 breakout are unlikely to bear fruit. And, even if those efforts proved China was somehow responsible for causing the breakout were successful, the U.S. option are limited.

Xi and his ruling party are highly influenced by their perceptions of the Qing’s dynasties serious problems that led to humiliation from the U.K. Americans tend to see free trade as a positive good. China’s leadership sees free trade as hypocritically advantageous for the U.S. We think of religious freedom as a main source for stability, but the PRC sees Christianity and Islam as destabilizing. Thus, their regime suppresses both. Hong Kong appears to Americans as an economic success story, but China is reminded of British imperialism. China sees Trump’s America First as but a new version of that.

Here are several areas where China is unlikely to relent: (1) China has made an irrevocable commitment to state controlled capitalism while allowing for individual entrepreneurship. (2) China is not wedded to a coherent, universal ideology. The Communist Party of China is no longer Communist, but the Party is committed to one party rule albeit with allowance for elections at the local levels. (3) China does not have nor is it likely to have an independent judiciary let alone a free press. (4) China is not going to quit exporting technology. (5) China is not likely to give up on requiring those who build plants in China to share their technology secrets with China. (6) China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) is inextricably linked to their future though their ruling party sees that their implementation has evoked resistance and must be modified. China seeks to restore its greatness at the center of the world.

Perhaps most important of all, China’s long history and deeply imbedded extended village relationships have favored the collective over the individual. China has no experience with western style democracy in its own governance nor is it likely to. The issue really has been more how authoritarian will its government be. It has learned from the horrid excesses imposed by Mao that Xi is just not going to be a mass murderer. Strong centralized control, yes, but murderous on a large scale, no. Concentration camps for the Muslims in its West, yes, but mass murder no.

China has been remarkably stable since Deng’s reforms of 40 years ago, the longest period of stability in China’s modern life. The model he put in place has stood the test of time, but it will not lead to democracy any time soon. Those who want to see China today as simply a warmed-over version of Mao’s totalitarian, murderous regime are mistaken.

But, China has inbuilt issues that will be hard for it to resolve and continue to grow economically. It is aging especially thanks to the long-term deleterious effects of its previous one child policy. Its exam system to enter the best colleges is so strict and jobs so insufficient for those who pass them that it has yet to resolve this disconnect. Its BRI has engendered legitimate complaints of being too overbearing in imposing debts upon its recipients. For this initiative to achieve a genuine win/win status, China must adapt. The U.S. by itself is unable to take much advantage of these issues.