Before his visit to london, US President Donald Trump had raised questions about whether the UK’s current Brexit plan is ‘what they voted for’. What troubles Donald Trump is the manner new trade understanding with the EU is being prepared by the May Government following a common rule book with Brussels which could derail a trade deal with the US
The United States of America has developed its power, potential and girth by staying away from the “Entangling Alliances of the European Continent.” The founding fathers of a nascent America, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay to name a few, aimed at developing the US’ internal strategic strength, and geo-political and geo-economic clout during a period of separation from the mother continent of Europe. Once the internal strengthening was achieved, the American dominance had to be spread to the rest of the weaker world. Still, there was not much of a conflict of interests between the various European states and the US, the new home of immigrants. The Trans-Atlantic bonhomie was “natural” in the larger relationship between the old home and the new home — Europe and America. There was a racial, religious and ethnic commonality between the old home and the new home.
Once Robert Gilpin defined International Political Economy as the “reciprocal and dynamic interaction in international relations for the pursuit of wealth and power.” It is only by the end of the 20th century that the approach of joining the political and economic aspects emerged in the field of international relations and the larger cosmos of a relationship between the US and the European continent. It is being considered that non-European Union structures need to be developed and understood between the European Governments and the US to facilitate the ideal of free trade between the two geo-political and geo-economic entities, Brexit being a case in point.
US President Donald Trump has often tweeted on Brexit. One of the tweets contends, “Many people are equating Brexit and what is going on in Great Britain with what is going on in the United States (where) people want their nation back!” Thus, a corollary can be drawn between the United Kingdom and the United States, wherein their Trans-Atlantic convergence goes beyond the ethnic and religious commonality and a recourse to nationalism, localism and protectionism is a running parallel between the nation of shopkeepers and the miasmic melting pot of the world.
In the light of the mid-term Congressional elections in December 2018, candidate Trump and President Trump has been tweeting that he supports patriotism and is dead against sedition. In a similar vein, it can be contended that globalism as a discourse is being negated at the altar of localism and it is also evident with the rise of Marie le Pen in France and Italian leadership to site a few pithy instances. The distrust across the Atlantic is reflected by the agricultural tariffs and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) feuds between the US and the mainland Europe.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has been proud of her decision of leaving the European Union along with creating trade and job growth in both the US and the UK after Brexit. May has been referring to a free trade deal with the US on Trump’s visit to london. Trump has prevaricated with the statement in British national daily The Sun that the British PM’s plan would kill the proposed free trade deal with the US and the American nation will be made to deal with European nation instead of an amalgamated Great Britain. Thus, Brexit might have a destabilising impact on the Trans-Atlantic partnership and across-the-pond relationship among the US, the UK and other nations in the affected European continent.
While, Trump had advised May to sue the European Union for a quicker Brexit, he has gone on to contend that EU, China and Russia are American foes and they may not be enemies after Brexit but “we have to get even keeping in view what they are doing to America in trade and other ancillary matters”. Trump’s incessant refrain has been that the nations belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have not spent enough on national defense and they have over relied upon the American nuclear and security umbrella against real and imagined threats. Further twists to the Trans-Atlantic debate have been provided by the admission of Trump that he approved of May’s political antagonist Boris Johnson, particularly as he railed against the Mayor of london for being soft on terrorism and crime in the underbelly of the British capital. Still, May continued with her taciturn standpoint as she stressed that Great Britain has voted to move out of the European Union and Britain stands to take its land, territory, law and money back to where it belongs, that is, the Briton’s homestead.
What Trump is against happens to be the manner and the process in which the new trade understanding with the EU is being prepared by Great Britain following a common rule Book with Brussels which could derail a trade deal with the US. Thus, the scars in the relational face have emerged but this kind of antagonism had always existed so it is nothing but a crest in the divergence across the pond.
As an apt instance, the European Union in 2017 had banned the American beef exports based upon hormone treated cattle. As a counter trade move, Washington imposed certain steps too which included imposing a 100 per cent tariff on Perrier mineral water, Vespa Motor scooters and Roquefort Cheese as the American traders maintain that the EU has not lived up to the 2009 deal between the US and the beleaguered European Union. As part of dispute resolution mechanism in the World Trade Organization, the arbitration body supported the American imposition of tariffs but the American establishment decided to rescind the taxes on Europe once a deal had been struck between EU and Washington as American beef exports were once again permitted in the confines of Europe. In a manner, the striving is on to bring back the European nations to the negotiating table as the EU has not lived true to the fullest extent on the lines of the 2009 deal with US.
An internal dispute too continued in the context of the Parma beef ruling in the case between Italy and the UK wherein, the EU court ruled that the rights over the name Parma can remain with the original company only when the beef is sliced and packed by the company Parma. What is sad and worrying is that the food safety is a significant stumbling block between the EU and America. The prospects for the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) was very bright and ebullient as experts analysed that the free trade deal with the US would augment the European economy to 120 billion dollars by 2027. The issue on MON810 maize befuddles the trade relationship among the pond nations as the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO) is another friction element between the ancient blood brothers. It’s the Greens which are fundamentally against the quintessential American positions on trade.
Still, as the world comes under the influence of local concerns, the globalist oriented genre of policy making and trade takes a backseat and finally it is the “America First” approach which makes an inroad into global geo-economic and geo-strategic thought with finding new partners and forging unimagined coalitions being the order of the day.
(The writer teaches International Relations at Indian Institute of Public Administration, Delhi)