At any other time in recent history, the Trump administration’s behaviour would immediately be called out for what it is: imperialism – plain and simple.Jessica Koscielniak/Reuters
Dani Rodrik is a professor of international political economy at Harvard Kennedy School.
America’s critics have always depicted it as a selfish country that throws its weight around with little regard for others’ well-being. But President Donald Trump’s trade policies have been so misguided, erratic and self-defeating as to make even the most cartoonish of such descriptions seem flattering. Still, in a twisted way, his trade follies have laid bare other countries’ failures as well, by forcing them to consider what their responses say about their own intentions and capabilities.
It is said that one’s true character is revealed in the face of adversity, and the same goes for countries and their political systems. Mr. Trump’s frontal assault on the world economy was a shock to everyone, but it also gave Europe, China and various middle powers an opportunity to make a statement about who they are and what they stand for. It was an invitation to articulate a vision of a new world order that could overcome the imbalances, inequities and unsustainability of the old one, and that would not depend on the leadership – for better or worse – of a single powerful country. But few rose to the challenge.
In this respect, the European Union has perhaps been the greatest disappointment. In terms of purchasing power, it is almost as large as the United States – accounting for 14.1 per cent of the world economy, compared to 14.8 per cent for the U.S. and 19.7 per cent for China. Moreover, despite the recent rise of the far right, most European countries have avoided backsliding into authoritarianism. As a collection of democratic nation-states whose geopolitical ambitions do not threaten others, Europe has both the power and the moral authority to provide global leadership. Instead, it dithered and then submitted to Mr. Trump’s demands.
Opinion: Brace yourself for the rest of Trump 2
Europe’s ambitions were always narrowly parochial; but in folding to Mr. Trump, it is not even clear that it served its own immediate interests. The July handshake deal between Mr. Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen leaves 50 per cent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminum, places 15 per cent tariffs on most other exports, and commits Europe to ridiculously high levels of energy imports from the U.S. Rarely has the EU’s structural weakness as a confederation of countries without a collective sense of identity been on starker display.
China has played a tougher game, retaliating forcefully with its own tariffs and restricting exports of critical minerals to the U.S. Mr. Trump’s vindictive, self-defeating foreign policies have helped China extend its influence and enhance its credibility as a reliable partner for the developing world. But the Chinese leadership has also failed to articulate a practical model for a post-neoliberal global economic order. Notably, China has shown little interest in addressing the two global imbalances that it has caused with its own large external surplus and excess of domestic savings over investment.
Meanwhile, smaller countries and middle powers have mostly played the quiet game, pursuing independent bargains with Mr. Trump and hoping to limit the damage to their own economies. The exception is Brazil, whose president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Mr. Trump’s feet. Despite facing punitive 50 per cent tariffs and pointed personal attacks, he has proudly defended his country’s sovereignty, democracy and independent judiciary.
Such leadership has been sorely lacking around the world. In India, the political commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out that many business and political elites are searching for ways to accommodate Mr. Trump. But in doing so, Mr. Mehta argues, they are misreading him and the world he is creating. At any other time in recent history, the Trump administration’s behaviour would immediately be called out for what it is: imperialism – plain and simple.
Imperialism must always be challenged – not accommodated – and that requires both power and purpose. It would defy political logic and the laws of economic gravity if a country controlling only 15 per cent of the world economy could dictate the rules of the game to everyone else.
Finding common purpose is perhaps the bigger challenge. If Mr. Trump “wins,” it will be because other large economies were unable (or unwilling) to articulate an alternative framework for the global economy. Pining after traditional multilateralism and global co-operation – as many targets of Mr. Trump’s ire have done – is of little use and merely signals weakness.
Mr. Trump’s actions have held up a mirror to others, and most should recognize that their reflection is not a pretty sight. Fortunately, their apparent helplessness has been self-imposed. It is not too late to choose self-confidence over humiliation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.