Staff Reports
In the world of international negotiations, results speak louder than words, and when it comes to dealing with trade and security, the self-proclaimed experts often miss the mark. Take, for example, the so-called “dumbest trade war” supposedly instigated by a former president known for his negotiating prowess. Critics were quick to scoff and predict disaster, yet here we stand with one of the swiftest concessions in American history. It’s hard not to appreciate the irony in watching skeptics panic over strategies that later turn out to be remarkably effective.
Consider the approach to China with tariffs that sparked near-panic among the elite. The outcry was deafening, with warnings of an impending trade catastrophe. How dare the administration even think of such a thing! Yet, fast forward a few years, and one finds that the current president has doubled down on these very tariffs. Surprisingly, measures initially dismissed as reckless are now embraced, proving perhaps that there was some method to the madness. It’s a classic tale of elites eating their own words.
Then there’s the issue of NATO spending. The previous administration insisted that allies should contribute their fair share. The usual crowd of critics reacted with disbelief. Who could dare disrupt the status quo? Insisting that other countries pay what they’re supposed to work wonders. NATO allies have since increased spending significantly, by approximately $50 billion. It’s almost like the “art of the deal” is not just a clever book title but a winning strategy. Who knew?
Meanwhile, let’s talk about Mexico and the border, a perennial hot topic. Back in 2019, there was unrest over the suggestion of tariffs to encourage Mexico to handle migration issues more assertively. Yet, in mere weeks, what had taken years before was achieved with Mexico deploying 10,000 troops to their northern border. Critics claimed it was impossible; yet here we are, and with additional benefits like the USMCA, critics sound more and more like broken records echoing forecasts that never came true.
All in all, it seems unwise to bet against someone with a penchant for making deals that turn doubters into believers. Whether it’s trade or securing the border, outcomes matter, and quick concessions make a strong case for a kind of negotiating often underestimated. Maybe there’s something to be learned from approaching international relations with a dose of boldness and a dash of what some might call audacity. The “dumbest” trade war? More like a masterclass in achieving results.
