Trump's "Economic Nationalism" - An Imperialist Policy Based On Corporate Power Agreements, Arms Sales, And Ending "Trade Barriers"

Since Donald Trump took office last January, commentators have struggled to define the meaning of his "America First" agenda. Seemingly wide discrepancies in his administration's communications and actions have led many to point to the influence of individual personalities, or the erratic character of Trump himself. However, with his actions in the last two weeks, it is now absolutely clear what "America First" and "economic nationalism" stand for- an aggressive trade and economic policy that will create gross inequality, environmental ruin, and fan the flames of global conflicts, and one that is intensely aligned with the agenda of national business groups.

The main goal of the Trump administration appears to be to increase US exports to further the dominance of US multinationals abroad, perhaps most crucially in the energy segment, which we have discussed in a previous piece. However, information technology, high-tech weaponry, chemicals, and agriculture are also key items on this agenda, which can be defined with confidence as an imperialist policy with quite dangerous implications.

Rosa Luxemburg noted over 100 years ago that corporations must search for new markets in order to maintain a high rate of profit and keep the economy running smoothly. With the global economy seemingly at the peak of the longest economic expansion on record, American financial institutions and multinationals have turned to an export-based policy, hoping to tap the markets of Europe and Asia in particular and stave off potential rivals.

In a letter to shareholders, Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of J.P. Morgan and the leader of the Business Roundtable, one of the US's largest corporate lobby groups with close ties to the Trump Administration, made a number of comments worth repeating:

"NATO has become less effective, serious issues surround trade and the WTO is unprepared to deal with today’s issues – and too bureaucratic and slow to fix them...Tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade are often not fair; intellectual property is frequently stolen; and the rights to invest in and own companies in some countries, in many cases, are not equal."

These concerns of Dimon's dominate the minds of the corporate class- and the Trump administration, which has sought to strengthen NATO by demanding increased militarisation of EU budgets- and, incidentally, fulfilling the US goal of increasing arms exports, which have soared following aggressive rhetoric and a fear campaign against Russia in Europe and Iran in the Middle East.

Trump has also sought to supplement the WTO- which, as Dimon alludes to, is increasingly controlled by "uncooperative" Global South countries- with a US-centered trade bloc.

As Nick Beams, an economic correspondent for the World Socialist Web Site, notes with insight,

"This assessment....was already being made by the Obama administration. Its two key global economic initiatives—the Trans Pacific Partnership, directed toward Asia, to the exclusion of China, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, directed toward Europe—were aimed at countering the relative decline of the US....Obama’s policy was not labelled “America First” but that was its essential content—the creation of a vast bloc centring on the US."

This will allow for an increase in US exports, which, as Dimon points out, must mean an end to "trade barriers," or, described more accurately, public health care, environmentalist, privacy anti-GMO, and cultural regulations democratically chosen by European citizens.

Two days ago, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) unveiled an over 500-page policy document detailing alleged "barriers to trade." On the agricultural side, the US wants to open European markets to American milk and meat, thereby requiring the EU to weaken regulations on GMOs and animal welfare.

The REACH regulations for European chemicals are also in the crosshairs of US multinationals, as are French film regulations, advertising limits, and public health "markets."

The timing of the document is significant. Just days prior, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that the US would be open to reviving the TTIP, which was "put in the freezer" in 2016 following massive uproar from citizens, NGOs and activist groups about the deal's threat to democratic rights and the environment.

Ross said that he was seeking authority from the US Congress to negotiate an even "broader deal." Presumably, this will include removing the "trade barriers" listed above. The US has already begun using NAFTA to try to prevent food labeling requirements, and has sought to ram the deal through before Mexico holds elections. The G7 in Quebec, which discussed NAFTA yesterday as part of the "B7" meeting of business leaders, will likely be host to some of the final negotiations and arm-wrestling by US trade officials. The deal appears multiple times in Dimon's letter, along with perhaps more important complaints about China, which Dimon notes are "legitimate."

The US has also been ratcheting up trade tensions with China over the past week, on issues of intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, and technology, proposing huge tariffs on microchips and semiconductors. There is no guarantee that the US business class will be able to push through these policies without major backlash. China also holds an enormous number of US Treasury bonds, which, if dumped, could overturn the world economy and create a 1930s style outcome- something predicted last year by Yanis Varoufakis. Even Dimon notes this fact: "There is always a chance that miscalculations on the part of the various actors could lead to negative outcomes. This obviously creates higher risk."

Disturbingly, Trump has justified his tariffs under the guise of "national security," which has ominous implications given the possibility of imperialist clashes over markets, resources, and locations such as the Korean Peninsula.