Monday January 20, inauguration day of the 47th President of the United States. In Washington, orange complexion, purple tie, Donald Trump unrolls. A speech in which expansionist desires and calls for peace intertwine. In the rotunda of the Capitol, Ronald Reagan’s iconic “peace through strength” resonates, which the billionaire does not quote. Perhaps a way of indicating – apart from the concern to distance oneself from any political affiliation – that the same words have a different meaning here.
But which one? How can we interpret the double discourse of the new leader of the first army in the world, who at the same time threatens to annex sovereign territories by force and dreams of becoming a Nobel Peace Prize winner? If it appears as paradoxical as it is unprecedented, Donald Trump’s posture would follow the forms of a familiar – if not founding – philosophy of modern America: the Monroe Doctrine. The analysis of Dominique Simonnet, journalist and essayist specializing in the United States, co-author with Nicole Bacharan of the work “The Great Days That Changed America” (Perrin, 2021).
L’Express: While presenting himself as the guardian of international peace, Donald Trump holds particularly offensive and even bellicose positions towards sovereign and peaceful territories. How can we explain this ambivalence?
Dominique Simonnet: It is the return of imperial isolationism. In other words, the desire to display a sovereign America that watches over its interests in the broad sense – both internal and external. We are less close to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” than to the Monroe Doctrine which consists of distancing oneself as much as possible from external conflicts which cost or could cost the United States money. It is ultimately the very essence of this country which was built on the desire to distinguish itself from old Europe. Today, Donald Trump is in this state of mind. He does not want to have to manage conflicts which, according to him, have nothing to do with the United States.
He doesn’t want to be linked to these conflicts, but on the other hand, he presents himself as the man who will resolve them…
Solve them yes, but only with the aim of freeing the United States from this material and financial constraint. He dresses this desire in a pacifist discourse. Even more so because he really hopes to obtain the Nobel Peace Prize. Except that he only thinks of this peace in terms of American interests. And to obtain it, he is ready to cede pieces of Ukrainian territory to Vladimir Putin, to enact the demilitarization of Ukraine and to force kyiv to renounce any entry into the European Union or NATO. But this vision does not take into account a significant fact according to which the war in Ukraine would enormously benefit the American arms industry. A report from a Republican think tank highlights the fact that ending the conflict would be a serious financial loss for the economy across the Atlantic.
So, his threats of annexation of the Panama Canal, Greenland, and even Canada would be nothing other than a component of his deterrence strategy?
I doubt that he has a clear vision of these different files. It could indeed be a way of negotiating on an equal footing with Putin. We tend to forget it, but during his first term, Trump was somewhat humiliated by Putin. Now that he’s back in charge, he wants to negotiate strongman to strongman. However, we should not neglect the importance of the other side of Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Alongside isolationism is imperialism. Noting the desire to rebuild the great empires – Russian and Chinese in particular – the new president wonders: “What remains of the American empire? Why is Canada, which is a neighboring country, not in our fold? Greenland, being geographically closer to the United States than to Denmark, why does it not belong to us, especially since it is overflowing with natural resources and constitutes a major strategic issue? he believes that the influence The Chinese are gaining too much ground, the tolls are too expensive, which is harmful to American interests. However, it only resonates in terms of interests, and in particular commercial interests.
The idea of putting an end to wars to make way for sweet commerce, isn’t that the very essence of the United States?
Yes, but this is an idyllic and illusory vision, even more so in a totally interconnected economy. Taking unilateral protectionist measures – as he does with customs duties – will inevitably lead to retaliatory measures which will deal a blow to the United States. Internally, American consumers will suffer from these protectionist measures since companies pass on this increase in customs duties on the price of products. Furthermore, on a purely geopolitical level, withdrawing from conflicts will not prevent regional instabilities from having repercussions in the United States. A Middle East in turmoil, for example, with open conflict with Iran, would have obvious repercussions on the American economy. The fact that Donald Trump does not take into account this notion of economic and geopolitical interdependence is worrying in this sense.
In addition, it is completely hermetic to the value system. For him, there are only interests, those of the United States, and his own in particular. The problem is that people also react according to their convictions and their emotions, linked to their history, and we cannot consider interests independently of the common values which underpin democracies. The treaties are also based on a system of alliances, which are themselves based on these common values. NATO, for example, was founded on a democratic ideal and a system of mutual aid. With Donald Trump, we have reached the paroxysm ofAmerica First !
Is Donald Trump the first president of the United States to go this far in America First ?
Probably, yes. Since the beginning of American history, there has been a desire to stay a little apart. But this wish systematically clashed with reality. Woodrow Wilson was elected on the promise not to involve the United States in what was not yet a world conflict [NDLR : la Première Guerre mondiale, 1914-1918]which he ended up being forced to do. Thirty years later, history repeated itself with Roosevelt. Even before Pearl Harbor, everyone understood that the United States could not stay out of the conflict for long. The Americans therefore very often found themselves obliged to intervene because events occurring thousands of kilometers from their territory had repercussions on them.
What could be the medium-term consequences of this America First ?
Canada has indicated that in the event of an increase in customs duties, it would respond by imposing equivalent tariffs on American products. Trade between the two countries being practically equal, this measure will therefore have direct repercussions in the United States. As for Europe, it has difficulty speaking with one voice. Two opposing views: those who see the return of Donald Trump as an electric shock, an opportunity for Europe to strengthen its trade policy and finally develop a common defense to compensate for the American withdrawal.
Others, who take a more pessimistic view, believing that it is too late to compete against the commercial empire that is the United States. I think that initiatives outside the EU framework, common to several European countries, but in small numbers, would be more effective. One thing is certain: on many subjects, such as digital technology for example, Europe must respond not only with regulations as it tends to do, but with creative initiatives, with real investment plans. .
By favoring a logic purely centered on American interests, does Donald Trump not risk alienating his closest allies, such as Giorgia Meloni, who would take a very dim view of an increase in taxes on Italian products? , or even Javier Mileifor whom customs duties are only an accelerator of inflation?
Donald Trump uses tariffs as a political weapon. His announcements are bluffs to initiate negotiations and give oneself the advantage. He hates multilateral negotiations and binding alliances. European countries need the United States, just as Washington needs European countries. He therefore wants to start arm wrestling games with everyone. If there is no common initiative, it will be up to everyone to know how to react. In California, when you venture into the desert, small signs tell you what to do if you encounter a coyote: face up, spread your arms, puff out your chest, make yourself taller than you are, to make him go back. Faced with Trump, we must adopt the coyote method, which does not mean using his brutality. You have to make yourself big.
.