In the course of last year’s US presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to “make America great again.” He would achieve that goal by doing two things, viz., putting America First and removing Obamacare and the other Obama Administration policies and programs that he adjudged to be bad.
There’s absolutely wrong with an America First policy per se. Every national chief executive was elected to his office by the people upon the understanding that he would put his country first in all his official actions. Donald Trump should put America first every day that he is in the White House; those who voted for him deserve and are entitled to nothing less. The same applies to Rodrigo Duterte with regard to the interests of the Philippines.
To keep his America First campaign promise, Donald Trump issued a multitude of executive orders in the days immediately following his assumption of the presidency. The US was withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership because those arrangements were not fair to the US American companies. They would instead be given incentives to keep jobs in the US and to not create them overseas. Tariffs would be imposed or raised to give US-made products a competitive advantage in their home market. And immigration policy would be tightened to slow the inflow of foreigners seeking jobs in the US.
These executive actions can legitimately be classified as measures intended to place America’s interests first. However, when they are considered in the context of Mr. Trump’s declared reluctance to maintain America’s longstanding geopolitical commitments—such as its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its relationship with its closest southern neighbor, Mexico—the impression that is created is that of the US withdrawing into a Fortress America.
Is this impression correct? Is a Fortress America in the making? Is the US on the verge of relinquishing its century-old role as the leader of the West?
The US could successfully maintain a policy of autarchy if it wanted to. Physically speaking, it is one of the best-endowed countries in the world. It has within its borders all the agricultural and mineral resources that a country needs, it has the world’s best river system, its industrial infrastructure is the mightiest in the world, its road network is magnificent, it has excellent research facilities—Silicon Valley is the prime example—and it has a domestic market of approximately 320 million people to consume the output of its industries and farms. The US economy can function and survive without the rest of the world.
But is a US economy choosing to function in solitary splendor a realistic scenario? From which quarters would opposition to a shift towards Fortress America come?
There are a number of reasons why Fortress America will be difficult to achieve in a globalistic 21st century.
The first reason is that it is very difficult to withdraw from international agreements, as the British government, which will shortly begin negotiations with the European Union in the wake of British Exit (Brexit), is finding out. The process of withdrawal is a very complicated legal process. US withdrawal from Nafta, which went into effect in 1995, is bound to be no less complicated. The process of withdrawal may well still be ongoing at the time Donald Trump’s term ends.
America’s longtime partners and major allies—the European Union countries, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea—will unite and oppose, through various means and in various fora, any attempt by the US to withdraw to Fortress America. As the world’s only superpower, the US is the democratic world’s leader and it is largely American power that has kept the peace in the world since the end of World War II.
The world’s most powerful military establishment—the US armed forces—is certain to oppose any shift to Fortress America. The US military realizes that, given the present geopolitical situation of the world—with numerous power centers, some possessing nuclear weapons, and with rampant Islamic terrorism—America must project its military might around the world if it is to be safe. America is safer with its bombers, surface ships and submarines patrolling the world rather than based close to home.
The US’s businessmen and economists are bound to oppose a shift toward Fortress America. Businesses and products are at their most efficient when they are subjected to competition, which would be absent in a Fortress America setting. Moreover, life for America’s citizens would be less exerting without the diversity and novelty that come with international exchanges.
A shift to Fortress America would definitely be opposed by the majority (52 percent) of the 2016 popular vote that went to President Trump’s Democratic opponent. Trump has no mandate to effect far-reaching changes in American society and governance. Except for the brief periods of isolationism in its history—such as the period between the two World Wars—the US has always been a good citizen of the world. Certainly, the present Democratic majority in Congress is in no mood to allow Donald Trump to pull the US off the world stage.
Last but definitely not least, there’s the American people. The people of a country that was made a modern nation by immigrants, that has engaged freely and congenially with the rest of the world for several centuries, that is welcomed as a participant—the key participant—in the management of the world’s affairs and that has come to enjoy the respect and admiration of much of the international community are unlikely to be pleased with a change in the US’s status from the leading mover in world affairs to a mere bystander. The several-centuries-long record and experience of a nation are not easily set aside; Donald Trump will be in office for only four years.
In conclusion, America First is a perfectly good policy, but Fortress America is both undesirable and realistic.
E-mail: rudyromero777@yahoo.com
