Building Alliances
The United States is threatening tariffs on allies like Canada and Mexico (higher than those threatened to our real economic rival, China). The President demands that the Panama Canal be “returned”. The Trump Administration seriously proposes that the Gaza Strip be evacuated of ALL Palestinians, bulldozed, rebuilt as the “Gaza Riviera”, and patrolled by the US military. He’s proposes a “friendly”, or not so “friendly”, takeover of Greenland.
And he’s made it clear that Ukraine better take whatever “deal” the US negotiates with Russia, or face a total loss of military support. And, by the way, Ukraine needs to give half of its mineral resources to the US (of course America would pay, maybe?)
There are lots of ways to view world politics. The United States, since World War II, has tried to build alliances with our friends to offset those of our enemies. During the Cold War (1948-1992) the US built NATO, an alliance of European nations, CENTO, an alliance of middle Asian nations, SEATO, an alliance of South and East Asian nations, and ANZUS, Australia, New Zealand the US. Those treaty organizations gave leverage against the Soviet Union and “their” alliance, the Warsaw Pact, and China and the other Communist Asian nations, Vietnam and North Korea.
Cooperation
Building alliances was a “cooperative” effort. The US asked for assistance, military base locations, support of the other national armed forces, votes in the United Nations, and the literal “weight of the world” against their rivals. In return, the US offered incentives. Some were military, as simple as Article 5 of the NATO declaration: “…an attack on one member Nation is an attack on us all”. Article 5 has been invoked once, when non-governmental terrorists struck the United States on 9-11. When the US went to war in Afghanistan, a wide variety of our allies joined us.
Alliances also offered protection: the US would use its mighty forces, particularly the Air Force and the Navy, to spread a range of defenses over our “friends”. When the Soviets pushed the “envelope” over the Arctic, or the Sea of Japan, or in Europe; it was US forces that countered their moves. And ultimately, it was the US nuclear deterrent that protected the world against the Soviet (and to a lesser extent, Chinese) nuclear threat: Mutual Assured Destruction.
Our friends also got favored economic status. We used our manufacturing might, and also our agricultural abundance, to help our “friends” develop and flourish. Sure, we might have made a few more “bucks” in other ways, but favors on the economic side led to responses on the military side. It was a way of sharing prosperity, and building security. It was a “win-win” proposition.
Biggest Kid on the Block
But the “ideology” underlying the current Administration’s policies has a wholly different basis. Instead of a “win-win” concept, it is based on the “zero-sum game” theory. They believe there is a limited amount of success, resources, and financial wealth in the world. When one Nation “wins” another must lose. And, since the United States is the biggest military and economic power in the world, one nation versus another, the US should ALWAYS “win”.
“Zero-Sum” theory directly contradicts the “win-win” theory of coalition building, because coalitions make all the nations “winners”. In the “zero-sum” theory: ” To the biggest, baddest, strongest; goes the spoils”. So the United States shouldn’t be “good-old Uncle Sam”, trying to make the world a better place. Instead, we should “biggest kid on the block”, who takes what it wants.
What About?
Why talk about taking over Greenland? Regardless of what the Administration says about Greenland’s geographic importance as a “military base”, the reality is that as climate change causes the Greenland glacier to melt, it’s revealing mineral resources. It’s not about a place to put a base, but a place to put a mine.
What about rebuilding Gaza? It’s surely not about the Palestinians, who would be shoved off somewhere, anywhere else. Certainly Jordan, Syria, and Egypt don’t want them. All three nations have bad memories of times when Palestinians were there before. It’s about securing Israel’s border, and making personal money at the expense of the US government. Can’t you see “TRUMP MED HOTEL” on the Gazan coast, towering over the sand beach and rolling waves?
And why is Trump insulting the leader of Canada, calling him “Governor Trudeau”? What does Trump really want? In many ways the Canadian economy is an extension of the US economy. Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, and Honda all build cars in Canada for sale in the United States. Trump is looking for a new source of revenue to dramatically increase the US government account (why? – that’s a different essay I’m working on). Tariffs on Canada (and Mexico) could create some of that revenue. And who would pay for it? Since tariffs are ultimately passed onto the consumer, it would be the American buyers who would pay the new “hidden” tax.
Ukraine
And what’s really going on in Ukraine? It’s personal. Remember that Trump’s first impeachment was all about the corrupt bargain he was trying to make with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to stop Joe Biden’s candidacy for US President. Zelenskyy didn’t go along with the deal offered in the “perfect phone call” – payback’s a bitch when it comes to Trump.
Second, Trump wants to trade with Russia, another “zero-sum” where Russia will supply the money now trapped in Russian oligarchs blocked accounts, for investment in the US (and maybe pay off Trump’s personal loans?). The only way to do that is to clear the sanctions over Ukraine. End the war, free the cash. And, by the way, Ukraine has little to “play” in this deal, only their freedom as a democratic nation, something that Trump cares little about. But there are minerals in Ukraine (just like Greenland) that the US could use – so forcing them into a deal has all sorts of “benefits” in Trump world thinking.
The zero-sum world is one on one, bi-lateral. That’s because one on one the US should always “win”. The win-win world shares the wealth, the zero-sum world allows one nation to accumulate wealth. In the end Trump isn’t crazy, talking about Greenland and Panama. He’s simply taking his own personal Manhattan real-estate view of economics, and applying it to the world.
The question should be: is this the kind of world we want? Is democracy and national sovereignty in Ukraine more important that America’s wallet? And more importantly, is democracy and national sovereignty in the United States more important than America’s wallet?
That may be the ultimate choice Americans will make.
