Trump Is No Dragon Slayer
By Haldan Jacobson
The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani on January 3 of this year was a surprise to everyone—Iran, Europe, many in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. No matter which way you look at it, killing Soleimani was an incredibly bold move. However effective at taking down an enemy, the move was nonetheless brash and poorly thought out. The killing of Soleimani was the equivalent of swatting a hornet’s nest with a hammer, messy, effective, but with repercussions.
The Trump administration has routinely used hammer solutions for many of America’s quarrels, domestic and foreign. For example, when attempting to solve the many trade disputes between the United States and China, Trump ignited a trade war and slapped tariffs on Chinese goods, with China returning fire by implementing tariffs of equal weight and measure. However, the ultimate losers of Trump’s trade war were neither China nor the United States, but rather consumers in both countries. Companies that import into the United States don’t absorb the tariffs imposed on the goods they import; they pass the tariffs on to the consumer, and by extension to the American economy. Trump’s actions against China contained very little thought about the consequences.
Another example is healthcare, where Trump thought the best solution would be to simply obliterate Obamacare, something many Americans rely on, without offering any replacement. Luckily for the 8.5 million Americans enrolled in Obamacare (myself included), Trump’s attempts to abolish it have been unsuccessful.
The killing of Soleimani, the trade war with China, and the attempted rollback of Obamacare have one thing in common: In all three cases, little or no thought was given to the consequences.
But what happens when the stakes are even higher than the examples previously mentioned? What happens when the crisis America faces cannot be solved by the blunt force of a hammer, but only by a thoughtful, finely tuned instrument? Is Trump our brave knight in shining armor ready to protect us from such an event?
Think of it this way, the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Fortunately for the world, instead of proclaiming to the Russians that “my button is bigger than yours,” President John F Kennedy surrounded himself with experienced senior advisors and were able to negotiate the world away from nuclear disaster. Trump, on the other hand, has cycled through his senior officials at such a rate that it has left the United States captained by a group of novices, ideologues, and sycophants who do little to challenge or temper Trump.
To take one very salient case, I doubt that the Trump administration contains people with the ability to strategically and diplomatically navigate the United States away from a military confrontation with China. Unfortunately, over the past decade, China has been ramping up its use of hard power and aggression. For example, it has been constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea, placing airstrips and missile defense systems on those islands, and then claiming the surrounding waters as its own.
In addition to this, in the disputed region of Aksai Chin in northern India, India and China have routinely come into conflict, with the most recent example resulting in the deaths of 20 Indian military personnel. In Cambodia, the Chinese government has bought up much of the country’s coastline to construct ports and naval bases. China has also been increasing its human rights violations. Prominent examples are the forced “reeducation” of its Uyghur Muslim minorities in Xinjiang and its creeping strangulation of free Honk Hong. Perhaps the most gleaming treasure in China’s eye, however, its white pearl, is political and cultural reunification with the island nation of Taiwan.
Taiwan, in the eyes of the United States, is considered part of China, however, much like Honk Hong, the island enjoys a level of autonomy from the mainland. Taiwan holds free elections, drafts its own legislation, and has an independent judiciary. In addition to this, Taiwan is the United States’ ninth-largest trading partner, with the United States being Taiwan’s second. This combination of freedoms, values, and economies that Taiwan shares with the United States when combined with the geopolitical ambitions of China, is a potential tinder box. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States will "maintain the capacity [. . .] to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
In other words, the United States would attempt to preserve Taiwan’s sovereignty should it be threatened. And why should it not? If Taiwan fell to the mainland, free trade, freedom of navigation, and the survivability of democracy in the region would all be put in jeopardy.
Now, neither the United States nor China desire war, but with the growing aggressiveness and geopolitical ambition of China, in tandem with the Trump administration’s willingness to act without thinking about consequences, the potential for mistakes—and therefore disaster—grows exponentially. One need only consider the start of WWI to learn how steep and slippery the slope to war can be.
This potential for disaster is not eased by the fact that many of the officials in Beijing see President Trump as “incompetent” and “self-interested,” more concerned with his reelection than international affairs. The perception of weakness in Washington makes it much more likely that the Chinese will use Trump’s incumbency to lay the groundwork for their longer-term geopolitical goals. The window of opportunity for China will be extended if Trump wins a second term. In the eyes of Beijing, the Trump administration is ill-equipped to handle a well-organized, united, and strategic enemy—and in this they are correct.
If Trump is reelected, we as Americans can only hope that his hot air is enough to combat China’s fire.
All opinions expressed within the contents of this article reflect the views and values of the author, not Politics NOW.
Comments