FROM the tenure of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, there are so many political lessons to be learnt.
Perhaps these lessons have always been prevalent in one form of emphasis or context, but whose imperatives and sociological importance may have been allowed to fade and waste away in the din of a world forever in conflict.
One of the lessons which even the Donald himself should heed is that after the singularly impactful style of the Führer in Germany in the 1930s, no democratically elected leader has ever defined their tenure. To an appreciable degree, he may bring colour, temperament and pace. But it is the “moths-of-the-flame”, the unelected executives that populate the spokes of his political wheel that would influence the fate of his tenure.
While plotting his way back to the White House through the Presidential elections of 2024, Trump may have fancied himself as an anti-war candidate. His campaign machinery worked hard to brand him as such, attracting two unlikely natural-born Democrats, Bobby Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard, into their fold. And so the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize wafted dreamily through the sentimentality of the MAGA enthusiasts, whose task it is to perfect the sophistry that their leader ends permanent wars and prevents the initiation of new ones.
Keen observers were alarmed by the President’s cabinet and ambassadorial picks that composed two camps. There are the pro-Zionists on the one hand and the tariff hawks on the other. The only common thread among them all is their passion and commitment to war.
For the pro Zionists, the war ought to be with Iran and its perceived allies. For everyone else, it is China! The Donald and his indefatigable negotiator Steve Whitkoff are completely surrounded. Their preeminent ideal of peace has been craftily twisted beyond recognition. It is now called peace through strength, especially by sanctions and then war.
Speaking generally, the nationalistic attraction to tariffs is its façade that connotes a genuine interest in industrialising one’s economy, especially for developing countries. And where the context permits, re-industrialisation for those countries for whom such a desire befits their capabilities. Potus 47 has a lot of historic examples for reference.
On his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he saw Richard Nixon imposing a 10% tax on all imports in 1971 as part of the Nixon Shock. In 2002, he witnessed the progenitor of his least favourite political dynasty, George Bush Senior imposing 30% tariffs on imported steel.
But the inimitable Trump was effusive in his desire to teach, reminding all those who care to listen that at 245% tariffs, the outcomes of the Uruguay Round and its eminent creation, the World Trade Organisation, are officially dead.
The psychological and moral threads that hold the sanctity of globally acceptable tariffs of 3.6% are irreverently brittle. Tariffs can only be used sparingly and with care. They provide the dividing line between continuity of global trade and the infantile misadventures of ultra-nationalism.
Reasonably used as a tax on incoming goods, tariffs retain their benign innocence, projecting a somewhat ignorant grandmother, but genuinely caring. When Trump imposed 25% tax on any country that imports Venezuelan crude oil, he helped liberate the global commons from the innocence of the concept. He has dropped another valuable lesson. The President has used tariffs as sanctions.
With these developments, China quickly retreated into a vast and culturally impenetrable vestibule of reflection. Before they could even respond on a like-for-like basis, the thunders of more tariffs struck with ferocity, ostensibly for three reasons.
First, for the audacity to retaliate. Second, for not cowering to US power. And third for Xi not picking up the phone and calling Trump. With these escalatory tariffs, fear quickly spread throughout the global markets, wiping out a cumulative value from the main bourses of the US, Europe and Asia estimated at $10 trillion.
Even more bizarre, however, the tariffs against China have reached alarming levels of 245%. The mutation of the tariff code into sanctions is now complete.
Contemplating that China would take practical measures to secure its global trade leverage, the United States convinced itself of an urgent countermeasure. In order to enforce these tariffs, or sanctions as we now know them, Scott Bessent, the 79th treasury secretary announced a scheme.
The details of it and the individual countries involved remain in the murky realm of conjecture. But its rudiments have been shared. The US is planning to enter into trade agreements with 71 countries, whose main characteristic is that such countries will have favourable terms of trade with the US and possibly be tariff-free.
The only condition is that none of these countries in this count will do business with China, a short code for a Bollywood-like threat. Do my bidding or else!
Every once in a while, all countries without exception do find their opportunistic window of small-mindedness suddenly prized open, permitting a gush of social insensitivity and political irrationality. That phenomenon, brief as it is bound to be, has gripped South Africa in the most intellectually depressing ways.
Whil Trump is not a permanent phenomenon in the psyche of the US nor shall his policies retain a permanently pervasive and corrupting influence on the global stage, a fact known even to Afriforum and the DA, the country’s collective instincts are being primed to adjust to the fallacy that the world shall forever be viewed from the prism of the Donald or the US for that matter.
Before there could be a commitment to a healthy relationship with the US, considering that the factors negatively affecting it are beyond transactional, it is imperative that South Africa should sharpen, broaden and deepen its all-around relations with the continent first, and BRICS overall.
Mncebisi Jonas or not, no appointment of an Ambassador or a home-based envoy will have a meaningful effect on a one-to-one negotiated basis with the US. Such an appointment may not posses adequate clout to achieve such a complicated outcome. The suggestion of alternate names, whether Tony Leon or Afiforum nominees, is a facetiousness emblematic to the silliness of the hour.
The oldest board game in China Go, also known as weiqi, is an interesting game. It takes a long time to play. It involves building formations on the board with pieces called stones. As explained by Kevin Walmsley, unlike chess, it has no element of randomness or sudden luck.
To win, one player requires to close off the opponent’s liberties and cut off their freedom of movement, thereby taking control of most of the Board. The Chinese have been playing this game for over 3000 years.
For the self-professed anti-war president, who has been inspired by the 1890 McKinley Tariff Act, and who fervently believes that he will successfully negotiate a trade deal with China in 3 or 4 weeks from date, he may do well to remember the wise and somber words that must guide all peace-loving people in America and everywhere else in the world.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address in 1865, he concluded by saying ‘…with malice toward none, with charity for all…to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations”.
* Ambassador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law. The views expressed here are his own.
** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.