Who is truly afraid of the bully?

Donald Trump is putting himself in the very difficult situation of either following up on his bullying or losing face and credibility

It has been some time that the bullying tactics of President Donald Trump have ceased generating bewilderment or outrage to become a routine. It is however useful to assess their real efficiency. And here some interesting observations can be made.

One can realise that the offensive style of the US President is having a much more destabilising impact on America’s traditional allies than on its adversaries. Suffices to look at the way Mr Trump’s declarations on NATO and his questioning of Article five, stipulating that an attack against one of the members of the Alliance would be considered as an attack against all of its members and thus prompting the use of US military might, have created a very disturbing precedent; suspicions about the reliability of Washington’s commitment will linger on.

Take now Mr Trump’s criticism and disparaging attitude towards the European Union — a reversal of the traditional US policy of support towards the process of European integration. This is having quite a divisive and disturbing impact on what is supposed to be America’s most important ally and support in its policy towards Putin’s Russia.

Another point in case is Washington’s threats to impose punitive tariffs against the EU  — and more specifically German — and Japanese car exports to the US which would deal a serious blow to their respective economies. Tokyo, Brussels and Berlin are scrambling to find ways to avoid these sanctions; and this acrimony on trade relations and profound unease towards America’s new aggressive mercantilism can only add to their reluctance to fully align themselves with Washington’s policies towards China.

One could add many other examples of the disruptive impact of the Trump administration’s bullying on its relationship with its allies such as its stubborn rejection of the reality of climate change and the urgent priority for concerted global policies to fight against it.

Let us now turn to what is happening with respect to America’s adversaries and the way Mr Trump’s bullying tactics are impacting their attitude. In that respect, four cases are of particular relevance: China, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. They are relevant because — to a large extent — they have come to represent a kind of litmus test of America’s continuing ability to exert influence as the prominent super power and to shape global events.

Turning first to China, looking at the latest developments in the two countries’ trade negotiations, it is becoming clear that bullying through increasingly high import tariffs against Chinese goods is not making Beijing bend to Washington’s will. There have been concessions from China on issues such as greater protection of Intellectual Property, opening up of some sectors to foreign companies, officially limiting or ending technology transfers as a condition for operating on the Chinese market. These are not, however, the structural changes that the Trump administration tactics are trying to force on the Beijing leadership. And it is more than doubtful that President Xi Jinping will move in that direction, as this would be undermining the very nature and legitimacy of the regime. So, after the deadlock reached this last week-end, the key challenge is now to find ways to resume the dialogue once the tariffs war and the bluster will prove to be inconclusive. It is not a given that Beijing will be less resilient than Washington on sustaining its position.

Looking at Iran, the unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the tightening of sanctions have clearly no other objective than to engineer regime change in Tehran. While Washington’s moves on Iran have created deep divisions with the EU, there are major doubts that this will succeed — whatever one may think about the nature of the Iranian regime. The key question is whether this will not rather aggravate the crisis and make the Iranian regime toughen its position, like increasing its uranium enrichment and intensifying its aggressive behaviour in the Gulf and in the Middle East — with some questions about who is behind the last week-end attack against two Saudi tankers in the Gulf. One can bet that Moscow and Beijing will do whatever they can to help Tehran in its contest of will with America

Turning to Venezuela, here again the regime change attempt is still not working and Mr Nicolás Maduro remains in power, with the attempts to lure the army to abandon him and support Mr Juan Guaido as self-proclaimed new president of the country having failed so far.

Here again, Russian and Chinese support to Mr Maduro is proving very important in helping the Venezuelan ruler to blunt US pressures.

On North Korea, the mix of bullying and “love letters” between Mr Trump and Kim Jung-un has not brought the expected results as the US President was obviously not equipped to deal with his North Korean interlocutor, what he could be prepared to accept and what was impossible for him to go along with, given the nature of the regime in Pyongyang. So Kim Jung-un has resumed his missiles testing, disregarding Mr Trump, who is left with the lame excuse that these tests are not important.

Without trying to predict what will come next on these four litmus tests on US ability to shape global events, there is already one worrisome learning that come out of them: Much of the bullying actions and tweets and off-the-cuff moves from the American president happens without any strategic vision behind them to help devise contingency planning on alternative options about what comes next. Donald Trump is putting himself in the very difficult situation of either following up on his bullying — which might lead to major global crises and even military escalation and confrontation — or losing face and credibility. Which cannot be taken lightly, speaking about the leader of a major super-power.

The writer is President of Smadja & Smadja, a Strategic Advisory Firm ;  @ClaudeSmadja