Global Business Environment Assignment

Criticize Donald Trump’s

“America First Policy”
Submitted By
PGDM -A

Name Roll
Kakolie Sen P20126
Dhanya Venugopal P20119
 The Meaning of 'America First'

One of the central lessons of international relations is that war is easy, but peace
is hard. The 70 years of relative peace and prosperity that most countries have
enjoyed since the end of the Second World War did not just happen. They
resulted from the conscious efforts of the United States to construct and sustain
an open, rule-based, liberal world order — a world order that is now at risk
under President Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

To protect America’s global interests required the U.S. to build a military strong
enough to impose unacceptable costs on any who might harm them. But a
United States powerful enough to dissuade its enemies on a worldwide basis
could also use that power to prey on its friends. To allay these fears, the U.S.
both embedded its power within rules, norms and institutions that constrained it
from acting arbitrarily in ways that harmed its allies’ vital interests, and
legitimated its power by binding its use to an overarching, shared moral purpose
— the protection of human rights and the promotion of human liberty.

The U.S. was not motivated by altruism. The United Nations Charter was
signed in San Francisco, after all, not neutral Geneva. The U.S. saw an open,
liberal international order centered upon American power as the best way to
protect American security and American interests in an otherwise hostile world.
Strong alliances with other liberal regimes were necessary because no single
state, not even the U.S. during its nuclear monopoly, is powerful enough to
generate a stable global order in a world of fragmented political authority. And
because an American-centric liberal world order would also protect and
promote the interests of other liberal regimes, it offered a potential escape from
the deadly, dog-eat-dog, balance-of-power politics and two world wars that
killed up to 100 million people in the first half of the 20th century.

President Trump’s foreign policy of “America First” seeks a different pathway

to protect American interests. It (correctly) perceives that other countries,
especially American allies, have reaped substantial benefits from an open,
liberal world order that imposes real constraints on the U.S., and that American
allies do sometimes free ride on the liberal order that American power sustains.
But rather than tolerating some free-riding as unavoidable, and the constraints
on American power as necessary to building trust, good will and common
purpose among allies, Trump sees both as ways in which others shamelessly
exploit the United States’ (naïve) good will.
Trump’s “America First” policy accepts the liberal order’s premise that
protecting America’s global interests requires an American military strong
enough to dissuade any who might harm it, but it rejects any constraint on the
exercise of American power in the pursuit of American interests. Trump’s
rhetoric and actions, such as the metastasizing trade war with our major trading
partners or his threat to abandon NATO, intentionally seek to undermine the
core economic and security institutions that structure the liberal world order
precisely because these institutions constrain the United States from using its
power to prey on others, or, in more Trumpian language, “to cut a better deal.”

Trump likewise rejects the notion that American power should be bound to any
overarching moral purpose apart from protecting America’s narrow self-
interest. He thus disparages the United States’ traditional democratic allies,
while praising unconstrained, authoritarian strong men such as Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdog˘an, North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un
or Russian President Vladimir Putin. “It is the right of all nations,” Trump
proclaimed in his inaugural address, “to put their own interests first. We do not
seek to impose our way of life on anyone. … At the bedrock of our politics will
be a total allegiance to the United States of America.”

In effect, Trump seeks to return the U.S. to a world of balance-of-power politics

that the architects of the liberal order sought to escape. It is a world of
unconstrained power ordered by fear rather than trust, in which the powerful do
what they will, while the weak suffer what they must. Such a world may well
yield short-term gains, as other countries make concessions to protect
themselves from an aggressive and opportunistic United States. But the long-
term prognosis is grim.
 America First Policies Leave America
Alone and Disadvantaged

The rules-based international order and the global interdependence it

facilitates have promoted seven decades of economic growth and relative
stability. However, integration brings its own unique cross-border
challenges, from nuclear proliferation to migration, terrorism, pandemics,
and climate change. All require countries to put aside their rivalries and
political differences and work together. Unfortunately, prospects for
international cooperation are dwindling, thanks to resurgent great power
competition and the Trump administration’s animosity toward
multilateralism and abdication of global leadership.
To consider how best to ameliorate this crisis in global cooperation, forty-
seven delegates from twenty-two countries gathered last month for
the Council of Councils (CoC) seventh annual conference in New York. The
CoC is composed of twenty-nine major policy institutes and is designed to
facilitate candid conversation and consensus building among influential
opinion leaders from both established and emerging nations. In individual
sessions the participants discussed ways to move forward on global trade
without U.S. leadership, means to strengthen effective climate change
action, the geopolitical implications of technological innovation, and the
regional and global challenge posed by Iran.

President Donald J. Trump dominated conference discussions, and two

themes repeatedly emerged. First, Trump’s apparent policy of repeal without
replace is a recipe for disaster. Second, Trump’s America First nationalism
and protectionism threaten the rules-based order that has served the world
well. While U.S. protectionism is not new, Trump’s rejection of the basic
tenets of globalization and international rules is. His constant tariff threats
and wanton disregard for the World Trade Organization’s rules degrade U.S.
relations with the rest of the world and will eventually strain global
economic growth, which relies on global supply chains and the certainty
provided by the rules-orientated multilateral trading system. It will also
distract legitimate efforts to not only enforce rules (particularly vis-à-vis
China), but also to adapt them to today’s changing geopolitical and
economic structures.

Participants considered Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from

agreements such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and
the Paris Agreement as huge setbacks for international cooperation.
Fortunately, other parties have redoubled their commitments to the Paris
accords, including U.S. subnational actors. Still, participants agreed that the
Trump administration’s stance will decrease the accord’s effectiveness.

Trump’s modus operandi appears to be instant gratification with no regard

for next steps or long-term strategic implications. Trump continuously
pursues minor, short-term, domestic political “wins”—such as withdrawing
from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, JCPOA, and Paris accords, and
implementing tariffs under the guise of national security—to the detriment
of the patient, long-term planning necessary for successful foreign policy.  

Trump boasts that his America First policies are making America great
again, as well as restoring U.S. national sovereignty. But as Stewart Patrick
argues in The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World, the
more Trump focuses only on U.S. sovereignty and unilateral actions, the
more he undermines America’s actual ability to influence its own future in a
global era.  As transnational challenges grow, advancing U.S. interests often
requires difficult trade-offs between protecting U.S. freedom of action and
maximizing U.S. control over outcomes. On its own, the United States will
not be as effective in exploiting shared opportunities or combating terrorism,
mitigating climate change, or preventing illegal trade actions.
Rebelling against the rules-based order may give the United States more
freedom of action, but abandoning a system that advances U.S. economic,
diplomatic, and strategic interests will have damaging consequences for the
United States.

First, the United States will have less ability to work with and influence
allies. The recent Group of Seven (G7) summit is a case in point. Trump’s
decision to repudiate a previously approved joint communique depletes U.S.
credibility and sows mistrust. Officials
from Canada, China, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have
criticized Trump’s unilateral actions. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA
also casts doubt the United States as a reliable diplomatic partner, which
reduces U.S. leverage in negotiating an agreement between Trump and North
Korea.

Second, Trump’s orientation undermines the U.S. ability to influence

outcomes. By withdrawing from the JCPOA and Paris accords, the United
States in effect cedes a seat at the table, potentially allowing other countries
to shape next steps, including the design of global rules to suit their own
interests.

Third, Trump’s tactics empower the very great power competitors his
administration’s National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy
identify as potential U.S. adversaries. A weakened NATO and strained
transatlantic relations provide a strategic advantage to Russia.

An isolated and belligerent United States also reinforces China’s

narrative that America is an unreliable partner, as it weakens bodies like the
G7 that omit China. Trump’s focus on short-term goals also allows China
to play a steadier long game in setting the geopolitical and economic rules
with policies such the Belt and Road Initiative. Moreover, planned U.S.
tariffs on China will most likely backfire, as integrated Asian supply chains
mean that all countries in the region will suffer from a trade war—which
they will blame on Trump. It could also accelerate the creation of an Asian
trading bloc, as Trump’s policies intensify the region’s desire to
economically diversify trade away from the United States. The best way to
pressure China to change its mercantilist industrial policy is not unilaterally
but through a coalition of countries—the same ones that Trump is alienating
with tariffs and tweets.

The Trump administration has some legitimate complaints about the current
rules-based order. Its norms and institutions were designed seventy years
ago and need to be adapted to new economic and political realities.
Unfortunately, Trump’s rebellion against the rules is distracting from the
conversations that should be occurring. Rather than a wrecking ball, the
world needs concrete proposals for global institutional reform.

Lord Jim O'Neill, the new chairman-elect of Chatham House, has issued a

timely call for “the world’s leading think tanks to start offering specific
ideas about the future of global governance.” That is exactly what the CoC
aims to undertake, through its conferences, Report Cards on International
Cooperation, Global Memos, and Global Governance Working Papers.

Trump and other anti-globalization voices have gotten away with their short-
sighted policies because experts have struggled to explain to the general
public the benefits of a rules-based order. It is time for experts, particularly
U.S. foreign policy experts, to raise their game and speak directly to the
people. Their clear message should be that a rules-based international order
is essential to U.S. and global prosperity and security. Yes, it may
sometimes constrain U.S. freedom of action. But a system of multilateral
rules, underpinned by U.S. values, is one that will magnify U.S. influence
and realize U.S. interests on the global stage.

“America First” Policy : Good or bad

for World Geopolitics

USA is a major influencer when it comes to international matters. But with the
‘America First’ policy not only the rest of the world but USA itself will suffer
in the long run. We have seen decades of economic growth and relative stability
with global interdependencies and rule based relations. In the times when we
are dealing with situations whose impacts are not restrained to the borders itself
like international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, migration, pandemics, climate
change etc., and all of these are the part and parcel of globalization, we need to
work together keeping aside rivalries and differences.
Unfortunately, Trump administration seems to have developed animosity
toward multilateralism.  Trump administration has been enjoying instant
gratifications without keeping in mind the side effects in the long term. Under
the following heads we shall see how the ‘America first’ policy apart from
alienating USA is changing the geopolitical dynamics:

 Climate Change :- Denying the reports of climate change, USA has

pulled itself out from the Paris Agreement. Climate change is a threat to
whole humanity and in a project where USA could have led the way and
helped the developing and under developed countries as well, with the
sort of money and technological infrastructure and minds it has. But USA
selfishly pulled out of the agreement stating that “The Paris accord will
undermine (the U.S.) economy,” and “puts (the U.S.) at a permanent
disadvantage.”
 Economy :- In October 2018, the International Monetary Fund has cut its
global growth forecast for this year and next by 0.2 percentage points to
3.7%.  Reasons are mostly Trump’s policies. The US president has
pursued two flagship economic policies since becoming president. One
was a mammoth tax cut, which could push his country’s budget deficit to
its highest point since 2012. The second is an outwardly aggressive trade
policy, including steep tariffs against China and the reworking of
agreements with long-standing partners such as Mexico, Canada and the
EU. Planned tariffs are definitely going to backfire as in this era of
 globalization and integrated supply chain will make all the countries in
their respective regions to suffer from trade war.

 Defence & Security :- With his across-the-board military escalations,

blank check to impulsive U.S. partners, hostility to the Iran nuclear deal,
supporting the extreme rightist regime in Israel and disinterest in
peacemaking, President Trump is making the Middle East less stable and
increasing the risks of conflict.

Conclusion
In the name of ‘America First’ policy, Trump has done huge disservice to
America and to the world. If America wants to continue being at the centre
stage on all international forums, it should take a detour from it’s present course
as soon as possible. A leader should take care of all those in need, without
disrespecting anyone and apart from keeping it’s interest in mind should take
initiatives and work for the greater good. At this crucial time when humanity is
at stake, USA should take and welcome proactive steps in the right directions,
making ‘America Great Again’ in its truest terms.