The writer is an economist,
anchor, analyst and
the President of the All Pakistan Private Schools Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
U.S. President Donald Trump’s initial steps upon his second term inauguration were a clear manifestation of his ‘America First’ doctrine, aiming to recalibrate U.S. policies towards a more unilateral and nationalist direction, rooted in the ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) slogan. The effectiveness of these strategies in making America ‘great’ again would largely depend on domestic reception, international reactions, and the long-term economic and geopolitical outcomes, all of which remain to be seen. Trump’s initial executive orders showcased a strong, unilateral approach to policy-making, aiming to reverse previous administration decisions and fulfil campaign promises. Geopolitically, these actions could lead to a more isolationist U.S., potentially weakening its global leadership role, especially in areas like climate change and public health. The moves might also strain relations with allies concerned about U.S. commitment to democratic norms and human rights. However, they could also be seen as strengthening Trump’s domestic support by aligning with his voter base’s expectations. The long-term geopolitical impact would depend on how these policies are perceived and reacted to by the international community, alongside any legal challenges or policy reversals that might occur. Trump, with a display of resolute action, inked eight executive orders into law, demonstrating his command. This immediate action was intended to demonstrate his command and set the tone for his administration’s policy direction. This approach was effective in establishing Trump’s image as a leader who acts quickly to fulfil campaign promises. However, the rapid issuance of executive orders can sometimes lead to policy implementation without thorough vetting or consideration of long-term consequences. This bold commencement was but a prelude to a torrent of executive actions aimed at fulfilling his campaign vows, including the exoneration of January 6 defendants, a stringent stance on immigration, the negation of federal recognition for transgender identities, and the undoing of his predecessor’s executive edicts. Among these inaugural decrees, he bestowed clemency upon 1,500 individuals charged in the tumult of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, thus extending mercy to those embroiled in that historic unrest. This move, while popular among supporters, was controversial, potentially affecting the rule of law’s perception both domestically and internationally. But, this action could strain relations with allies who view such pardons as undermining democratic norms and the rule of law. It might embolden similar movements globally, potentially affecting international perceptions of U.S. stability and commitment to democratic principles. Moreover, Trump allowed TikTok to operate for an additional 75 days in the U.S., reversing a previous ban. This decision reflects a nuanced approach to U.S.-China relations, particularly concerning technology and data privacy. It might have been seen as a conciliatory move or a strategic pause to reassess national security concerns, affecting U.S. tech policy’s international standing. Trump aimed to protect American industries from foreign competition, particularly from China, aligning with his economic nationalist agenda. This was intended to boost domestic manufacturing and job creation, reflecting a strategy to reduce economic reliance on global markets. His policies continued to favor fossil fuel industries, aiming to make the U.S. a dominant energy producer, which he believed would enhance national security and economic prosperity by reducing dependency on foreign oil. The sentiments on platforms like X suggest a polarized view, with some seeing these actions as a return to strength, while others view them as regressive and divisive. As always, the true impact will unfold over time, amidst the complex dynamics of global politics. By rescinding 78 executive actions of the Biden administration, Trump aimed to dismantle what he viewed as detrimental policies, particularly in areas like immigration, environmental regulations, and economic policy. This rollback was part of his strategy to return to an ‘America First’ approach, focusing on national interests over multilateral agreements. This reversal could signal a return to previous policies, potentially disrupting international agreements or commitments made under Biden. Allies and adversaries alike would need to recalibrate their expectations and policies towards the U.S., impacting global alliances and trade relations. Trump froze federal hiring except for military and essential services. While primarily domestic, this could impact U.S. diplomatic capabilities if it affects the State Department or other international-facing agencies. It might slow down U.S. responses to international crises or diplomatic engagements. Trump mandated a binary definition of sex in federal policy, impacting transgender recognition. Trump sought to revoke birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. His executive orders to challenge birthright citizenship and redefine gender identity in federal policy reflected a hardline stance on immigration and cultural issues, aiming to resonate with his voter base’s conservative values. These actions, however, were likely to face legal challenges, indicating a contentious approach to policy-making. This move, if legally upheld, would change the U.S.’s image regarding immigration policy, possibly affecting relations with countries from which many immigrants originate. It might also set a precedent for other nations considering similar policies. Interestingly, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty and the World Health Organization (WHO) underscored his scepticism towards global cooperation, prioritizing U.S. sovereignty and economic interests, and also reducing U.S. influence in global health governance, potentially weakening international health security frameworks. This isolationist stance was intended to renegotiate terms more favorable to the U.S. or to redirect funds towards domestic priorities.
Geopolitically, Donald Trump’s re-election has reignited discussions about his vision for a “Greater America,” a term that encapsulates his ambition to extend U.S. influence and assert dominance on the global stage. His recent statements regarding territorial expansions and a reorientation of American foreign policy suggest a bold, if controversial, strategy aimed at reshaping international relations and domestic policy to favor American interests above all else. Trump’s rhetoric has often ventured into the realm of territorial expansion, echoing sentiments of historical manifest destiny. His interest in annexing or acquiring parts of Canada, Greenland, and even reasserting control over the Panama Canal, as noted by various media outlets and posts on X, reveals a strategy that seeks to expand American geographical influence: Trump has suggested that Greenland should be part of the U.S. for reasons of national security, emphasizing its strategic importance due to its mineral wealth and potential military advantages. His comments on using “economic force” or even military might to annex Greenland have stirred international debate about sovereignty and U.S. foreign policy. Proposing Canada as the “51st State” might be more symbolic than practical, but it underscores his view of North American integration under American leadership. This could be interpreted as a push for closer economic ties, though it’s framed in a manner that challenges Canadian sovereignty. Trump’s desire to reclaim U.S. control over the Panama Canal reflects a nostalgic view of American power in Central America, aiming to counteract perceived Chinese influence in the region. The symbolic act of renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” is indicative of Trump’s approach to rebranding and asserting U.S. dominance even in nomenclature. Central to Trump’s vision for global supremacy is his economic policy, particularly his stance on tariffs: Trump’s plan includes imposing high tariffs on imports, which he believes will protect American industries. This approach, criticized as protectionist, could disrupt global trade networks but is aimed at strengthening domestic manufacturing and reducing trade deficits, particularly with allies like Canada and Mexico. His administration might revisit or abandon international trade agreements, favouring bilateral deals where the U.S. can negotiate from a position of strength. Trump’s past criticisms of NATO for not contributing sufficiently to collective defence have continued, suggesting a potential reorientation where allies are expected to bear more of the military burden or face diminished U.S. commitment. His policy might oscillate between confrontation and negotiation. While he has expressed admiration for strongman leaders like Putin, his approach to China seems more confrontational, focusing on trade wars to curb China’s economic ascent. Trump has promised to bring an end to conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war swiftly, though his methods remain vague, hinting at a transactional diplomacy where U.S. involvement could be reduced or redirected based on immediate national gains. Plans for mass deportation and stringent immigration policies are part of Trump’s agenda, aiming to reshape the demographic and economic landscape of the U.S. His administration might seek to increase executive control over federal agencies, reducing the independence of bodies like the Federal Reserve, as suggested by connections to Project 2025, which seeks to centralize power. Trump’s plan for Greater America is a bold assertion of U.S. power, driven by a vision that harks back to an era of American global dominance. However, this vision comes with significant risks, including international backlash, economic isolation, and internal strife. Whether this strategy leads to “global supremacy” or a more isolated America will largely depend on how these policies are implemented and the global response they provoke. As Trump assumes office again, the world watches closely to see if this vision can be reconciled with the complexities of 21st-century geopolitics. Trump aimed to redefine global leadership from the U.S. perspective, focusing on bilateral agreements where he could exert more direct influence, rather than multilateral frameworks which he often criticized for being unfair to the U.S.
Pakistan can work towards a more robust and beneficial relationship with the Trump’s Administration, by strategically enhancing its counterterrorism efforts, deepening economic ties, engaging diplomatically, maneuvering geopolitically, and fostering cultural exchanges.
The re-election of Donald Trump and his subsequent implementation of an “America First” doctrine herald a significant shift in the strategic calculus of U.S.-Pakistan relations. His policies, characterized by unilateralism and nationalism, demand a recalibration from Pakistan, where the balance between security imperatives and economic opportunities must be meticulously managed. Trump’s plan and agenda concerning Pakistan proposes strategies for Pakistan to leverage its geopolitical and geoeconomic position to foster improved bilateral relations with the U.S. under his administration. If we strategically analyse U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relations under President Trump, we can see that Trump’s previous policies and recent actions for Pakistan suggest a continuation of his America-centric approach, the geopolitical landscape for Pakistan presents both challenges and opportunities which has significant implications for U.S.-Pakistan relations. Trump’s administration has historically been critical of Pakistan for allegedly providing safe havens to extremist terrorist groups, particularly those involved in the Afghan war. His focus has been on compelling Pakistan to do more against these groups. Recent executive actions suggest a continuation of this hardline stance, with potential implications for aid and military cooperation. Economic ties have been a fluctuating aspect of U.S.-Pakistan relations under Trump. While there has been a reduction in aid, trade has continued, with the U.S. being Pakistan’s largest export market. Trump’s policy seems to lean towards transactional relationships, where economic engagement might depend on Pakistan’s alignment with U.S. security interests. Trump’s administration has shown a preference for India due to its strategic role in counterbalancing China. This dynamic places Pakistan in a challenging position, especially with the U.S. scrutinizing Pakistan’s close ties with China through initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Trump’s interest in Afghanistan’s stability indirectly affects U.S.-Pakistan relations. Pakistan’s role in facilitating peace talks or managing regional security issues could be pivotal in shaping its relations with the U.S. Given Trump’s policies and the current geopolitical environment, Pakistan can adopt several strategies to enhance its relationship with the U.S.: Pakistan should intensify its efforts against all forms of terrorism, particularly groups that have been a point of contention with the U.S. This includes demonstrating effectiveness in counterterrorism could lead to renewed trust from the U.S., possibly unlocking military aid or security cooperation. Pakistan should focus on expanding its trade relations with the U.S., emphasizing sectors like textiles, agriculture, and technology. By offering competitive trade deals and ensuring compliance with U.S. standards, Pakistan can strengthen economic ties. Pakistan can invite U.S. companies to invest in CPEC projects, presenting them as opportunities for U.S. businesses to participate in regional development while countering China’s influence. Pakistan should engage directly with Trump administration officials who might be sympathetic to its cause, especially those with a background in South Asia or military affairs, to foster understanding and support. Utilize the Pakistani-American diaspora to influence U.S. policy, which can lobby for favourable policies. While maintaining its strategic partnership with China, Pakistan should reassure the U.S. of its independence in foreign policy, perhaps by engaging in projects that benefit U.S. interests or by participating in U.S.-led initiatives that do not directly conflict with Chinese interests. Pakistan can position itself as a mediator in Afghan peace talks, using its influence to facilitate U.S. objectives in the region, thereby enhancing its strategic value. Increase cultural exchanges, scholarships, and educational programs with the U.S. to build long-term goodwill and understanding, which can soften political tensions at the governmental level. Under Donald Trump’s administration, Pakistan faces a complex diplomatic landscape where security and economic interests are paramount. By strategically enhancing its counterterrorism efforts, deepening economic ties, engaging diplomatically, manoeuvring geopolitically, and fostering cultural exchanges, Pakistan can work towards a more robust and beneficial relationship with the United States. These strategies not only address Trump’s immediate concerns but also capitalize on Pakistan’s unique geopolitical and geoeconomic position to forge a path towards mutual benefit and long-term stability in U.S.-Pakistan relations. Pakistan, standing at the crossroads of geopolitical tensions and economic potential, must navigate this era with astute diplomacy and strategic foresight. By intensifying counterterrorism efforts, expanding economic partnerships, and leveraging its pivotal geographic position, Pakistan can foster a relationship with the United States that not only aligns with Trump’s vision of a “Greater America” but also secures its own national interests.