As Trump’s advisor, I would advocate against for the use of international unilateralism to help achieve trade goals for the United States. Each administration the Unites States has had was forced to decide what trade instruments they feel would give the United States the upper hand in the game of trade. It can be seen that Trump’s administration is making the shift from bilateralism to the intent to use unilateral actions in trade agreements. Though the use of unilateralism may seem as an intent isolate the United States from the rest of the world, trump’s intent is to put the interests of the United States first.
For President Trump, any trade deficits that seem to threaten national security are of upmost importance. For example, after determining that steel and aluminum imports are a threat to national security, he ensured that high tariffs would be placed on these imports, though many advised him against it. The primary concern of those against steep tariffs on certain imports is the fear of trade wars, however Trump does not seem concerned about these fears.
The concerns raised following the tariffs placed on steel and aluminum imports are often represented as the beginning of the Trump trade war with the rest of the world. Though many citizens of the United States are aware of the trade war with China, many are unaware that that there are also battles between close United States allies such as Canada. Because of such issues many of those opposed to the trade wars are fearful that pushing away allies is dangerous because of the benefits associated with countries that trade with one another. With globalization so prominent between nations, those in support of trade argue that nations that trade with one another should be mutually independent because once one-sided tariffs are initiated, countries will respond with retaliation. Situations such as this prove especially detrimental with counties that have are strongly interconnected with one another economically. Often, trade is complicated in the sense that increased tariffs would not only result in an increase in the price of imported goods, but would also effect global value chains as well as the trade of other goods. This results in trade wars to be more prominent during today’s society in comparison to previous trade wars, as well as proving more detrimental to both sides by leaving the countries with less goods at a more expensive price. Those fearful of trade wars also show concern as to how willing Americans may be to purchase only American made versions of goods they often import. Furthermore, trade wars not only affect a country economically, but can hurt a country politically. Trump’s main argument for supporting trade wars is to increase the safety of national security, however many argue that the claim of national security serves more as an excuse for Trump. Many argue that rather than protecting the United States, trade wars may jeopardize national security in the United States as a result of deterring too far from United States foreign policy.
With United States foreign policy making, economic statecraft (the use of economic instruments) is one of the primary approaches for achieving foreign policy goals. “Some of these tools, such as sanctions, involve the direct application of economic pressure. Others, such as the promotion of free trade and open markets, work by changing other countries’ incentives. But all of them rest on a recognition that unrivaled economic power gives the United States a singular capacity to pursue its interests without resorting to force.” Trump has been following his personal approach to economic statecraft by following more of an analytical approach. Trump has differed from his predecessors in the sense that while other presidents have taken precautions to maintain the maintenance of trade, Trump does not seem to be so concerned about these issues, however as presidents have changed over time, so have foreign policy objectives. Statecraft is typically used to shift the focus towards a specific behavior one wishes to achieve, so politicians would use this to help convince others do so what they themselves may not have done. Statecraft used with politics can be seen with countries using their influence over other countries to achieve their own security interests. Many different interests may be used to achieve these goals, such as the use of diplomacy with negotiations between countries as well as the use of military instruments such as using weapons and violence to achieve a personal interest. Countries choose to use economic statecraft to help their own financial gains with various resources that may be traded with different countries.
Geoeconomics is typically defined as using economic instruments to help promote or defend national interests as well as producing geopolitical results which would eventually prove as beneficial to the country, typically these goals are highly effected by the economic actions of other countries. Geoeconomics coincides with economic statecraft in the sense a state is able to help pursue their own economic goals by securing their national interests with other countries by using economic instruments to not only support their own geopolitical aspirations but the geopolitical aspirations of other countries as well. For me, geoeconomics is the perfect balance of using tools both from economics as well as tools from politics to achieve economic actions that help to serve higher purposes in the state, such as national security and welfare. Policies are often broad and may vary between trade agreements, which help open markets between various countries, to sanctions which help to undermine economic exchange for a nation, and to tariffs that cause the price of foreign goods to increase resulting in domestic industries being supported over foreign ones.
Geoeconomics is not a new instrument in United States economic policies, since the end of World War II administrations have used geoeconomics to help achieve United States security interests. Though it has been around for decades, each administration previous has shown their own take to their personal geoeconomic strategies. Some administrations had proven to favor diplomacy measures, while others preferred military measures or other economic strategies such as sanctions.
The most iconic example of the United States using geoeconomics was during World War II when they opted to use multilateral strategy. By using a multilateral strategy, the United States used various policies such as diplomacy and warfare to help shape the international trade area postwar. By doing so, the United States helped nations such as Europe and Japan to strengthen themselves economically, as well as made alliances with the Soviet Union. This was beneficial to the United States financially because this helped to ensure that they would continue to receive raw materials from these countries. This helped to create an open trade market which would later result in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) as well as later lead to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Many who study geoeconomics believe this to be one of the most successful use of geoeconomics taken by a country, thus explaining why it is so iconic. The creation of WTO was able to serve as a geoeconomic tool for Unites States interests for years to come.
Though the WTO was the created of the United States, they do not shy away from breaking some of their own rules in order to help fulfill the interests of the country. However, the United States has always ensured not to abuse their power of and primarily only broke the rules for specific interests and for short periods of time. Over the years however, it can be seen that there has been a shift in the United States trade agreements and as a result a decline in hegemony which is a direct result of global power shifts causing the United States to lose power on the global area. With new countries rising to power, the United States began to lack the power they previously held when they were the only rule makers. With the results of concessions made to states as well as a decline in the willingness for countries to cooperate with one another the WTO became a weaker geoeconomic interest for the United States.
With the Bush and Obama administrations, one can see that these administrations began to make the shift from multilateralism to bilateralism. This shift proved beneficial to the United States because of the ability to now use market power as leverage during trade negotiations. These administrations both made attempts to create an international liberal system in which the United States would be able to adjust the rules to best support the interests of the United States. “Yet, in what must be an unusual development in the history of international institutions, the WTO has been felled by the weight of the extraordinary ambitions placed on it. As a consequence, since the late 200s, the organization has been unable to carry out its basic task of overseeing a successful conduct of multilateral trade negotiations.” With the increasing importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as well as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TIPP) the shift to bilateralism became more appropriate as a result of the loss of importance of the multilateral WTO.
Similar to those before him, it can be seen that Trump is putting emphasis on bilateralism over multilateralism. He also seems to agree with his predecessors in the sense that the WTO is no long as important for the trade interests of the United States. In an avoidance to make concessions, Trump is hoping to make deals using bilateral means, however with unilateral actions. By doing so, he hopes to be able to alter the rules to benefit the United States. Though Trump is using the bilateral ideals of his predecessors, it can be seen that he is attempting to shift the united states to unilateral activism.
As Trump’s trade advisor I would not support this shift. This is not the first time in United States that unilateralism is used. Typically, the purpose is to help the United States be able to realign their geoeconomic instruments before jumping back into the game of trade. While the Bush and Obama administration chose not to use unilateralism in fear that the power of the United States in the international trade area was limited and instead hoped to promote an international liberal ideal. To Trump, the biggest rival in the international trade arena is China, because according to him they have gained their power through unfair practices which he feels has threatened the national security of the United States. According to Trump, this has resulted in the United States having disadvantages in the trade agreement. This has led to the use of tariffs placed on Chinese imports in hope to increase hegemon within the United States.
Trump believes that a unilateral trade war is necessary to help the United States once again enter a primarily hegemonic position. However, according to Trump this is absolutely necessary as the result would be an increase in national security for the United States. With efforts to not cut down on United States sovereignty, Trump refuses to sign any agreements that do not ensure that the United States is the only beneficiary for the trade agreement. This will eventually result in launching a trade war with the rest of the world.
When studying politics, it is always important to look at the work of predecessors and either learn from their mistakes or follow what was done well. Prior to Trump’s presidency, administrations noticed that the power of the United States was falling with multilateralism and began to shift to bilateralism. However, in Trump’s case, he believes that a trade war with the rest of the world will help benefit the United States. The likelihood of Trump failing with this strategy is extremely likely. Therefore, as an advisor to Trump, I would advise him to stick with the bilateralism that has already been proven to work by his predecessors before him.