Six foreign policy positions — and what will really happen
China
“The worst of China’s sins is not its theft of intellectual property. It is the wanton manipulation of China’s currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs.”
—Trump commentary in the Wall Street Journal
China is one of Trump’s favourite targets, guaranteed to put heat under the collars of supporters who have lost jobs or seen their manufacturing-based communities crumble. They blame the “made in China” label for destroying America’s economy and standing in the world.
Trump’s remedy is to “cut a better deal” with Beijing by declaring it a “currency manipulator” that keeps its money artificially low and slapping a 45-per-cent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States. And for good measure, he’d beef up the U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to back efforts to renegotiate trade deals he considers unfavourable.
Reality check
The result of this hostile policy would be the opposite of what Trump wants to achieve, says China economy expert David Dollar of the Brookings Institution. “That would make it less attractive to invest there, encourage capital outflow and encourage depreciation of the currency, if it were market based.”
He adds that far from keeping its currency artificially low, “ironically, China is now intervening to keep its currency high.”
Trump couldn’t declare China a currency manipulator under present rules, because it doesn’t meet those benchmarks. He would also need congressional approval for changes in tariffs, which might not get support.
But, Dollar says, “to have a large tariff aimed at one country would violate World Trade Organization rules.” Trump could use presidential authority to try to withdraw from the WTO, he adds. “But that would be very bad for the investment climate everywhere, whether or not it caused a recession.”
Climate change
“Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.”
—Interview with The Washington Post
Trump vows to reverse any progress in cutting carbon emissions, renege on the Paris Climate Agreement, abandon pollution limits on coal-burning plants and restore the heavily polluting coal industry, ease environmental restrictions on polluters and escalate drilling for fossil fuels in untapped territory. He would also approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Paris agreement is expected to go into force within the next year. If Trump signalled intention to withdraw, it could have a domino effect on other heavily polluting countries, setting back international progress. And although federal targets are set for clean power plants, he could turn a blind eye to lax regulation by states that want weaker controls.
Reality check
“Trump couldn’t do as much damage as quickly and easily as he claims,” says David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Action Fund. “He couldn’t reverse (Obama’s) proposal to limit carbon emissions with a snap of the fingers.” Courts could weigh in and slow the process.
There would also be economic barriers to rejuvenating a coal industry that has faltered with the expansion of natural gas fracking. Citizen protests could slow drilling and pipeline plans. And low oil prices have made companies reluctant to expand exploration and production.
Mexico
“They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
—Candidacy announcement speech, June 2015
Keeping Mexicans out of the United States has been a cornerstone of Trump’s pathway to the presidential nomination and plays well with many supporters, especially his vow to “build a big, beautiful wall” along the border — and make Mexico pay for it.
To force it to pay, he has suggested that he could shut down the transfer of remittance payments to Mexico from undocumented workers in the United States and raise visa fees at all Mexican border points.
Trump also wants to “renegotiate or break” the NAFTA deal, which he says has allowed Mexico and other countries to steal jobs from Americans.
Reality check
“Trump will have no authority or clout to demand that a wall be built on the border,” says Larry Birns, who heads the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington. “There is nothing in international law that says Mexico must pay.”
And, he notes, many American businesses run on low-paid Mexican labour. “Why should he want to close a border famous only for its porosity, when there are industries with high visibility — growers of oranges, tomatoes, rice etc. — that depend on that labour?” Attempts to freeze or confiscate workers’ funds “could go into adjudication for months,” he says.
Meanwhile, attempts to shred the NAFTA agreement would “put international trade in a shambles.” And, says COHA, “it utterly disregards that Mexico is the U.S.’s second-largest export market due to the accord.” That was $236 billion last year.