Return of Donald Trump

When Trump had been elected president for the first time in 2016 with a narrow margin his victory had been ascribed to fringe groups who had managed to deliver an electoral verdict contrary to mainstream US politics. However, on this occasion, Trump has scored a convincing victory, demonstrating that his return is not an aberration but an endorsement of his views by the US heartland of middle-class white Americans who overwhelmingly support his 'America First' and 'Make America Great Again' agenda. But the critical question is: at what cost to the US and indeed the world?

Domestically, Trump could cause chaos, dislocation and disruption on an unprecedented scale. He has promised the "greatest deportation in history" of illegal immigrants, mainly from Latin America but also from Asia and the Middle-East, which could result in a humanitarian catastrophe. To promote greater government efficiency, several departments and agencies would be slashed or closed down leading to an administrative breakdown. The mainstream media, accused of promoting "fake news" against Trump, would come under severe attack. To enhance his own power, Trump could also clash with the Legislature and the Judiciary. The imposition of tariffs on all imports would shoot up prices increasing the cost of living for low income Americans while tax relief would be given to big corporations. All this would be a recipe for greater uncertainty and instability in the US.

Internationally, Trump's policies would be unpredictable if not disruptive, consistent with his own personality. The danger is that under his leadership, the most powerful country in the world could become the instrument for a world in chaos, with war and disaster bringing about the worst in humanity. Or, will Trump's second coming usher in more saner American policies since he has also promised to end wars and renounced regime change - the hallmarks of US policy since the end of the Cold War? Perhaps even Trump's does not have the answers to these questions.

During his first term, despite his aggressive rhetoric, Trump did not attack any country, in a marked departure from the policies of administrations led by the Democrats before and after him. True, Trump threatened North Korea but then met Kim Jong Un to lower tensions. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, and ordered the assassination of General Sulemani but did not attack Iran even after Tehran was accused of missile attacks against Saudi oil installations. More importantly, Trump ended America's long and disastrous war in Afghanistan and negotiated an agreement with the Taliban. Demonstrating realism, he retracted his criticism of Pakistan and engaged Islamabad to help facilitate talks with the Taliban, even offering to mediate a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. With China, Trump's aggressive policies involving sanctions and tariffs was not unique, and was consistent with American policies, reflecting a bipartisan US approach towards China. Perhaps, the only difference with the Democrats was towards Russia.

But, given Trump's unpredictability, his second term could be entirely different. His key cabinet appointments certainly point in a more aggressive direction. His Vice-President, JD Vance, Secretary of State Markco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are all hard-liners, indeed new-cons on steroids who make the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz look like bleeding heart liberals. Pursuing the 'America First' agenda this lethal combination would heighten tensions with China against which Trump has already declared a 60 per cent increase in tariffs. Apart from trade, this confrontation could accelerate an arms race and possibly trigger a showdown over Taiwan. The obvious beneficiary of this confrontation would be India - with bipartisan support to become a Net Security Provider in the Asia-Pacific. Similarly, these hawks would target Iran, especially for its support to Hamas and Hezbollah in pursuit of their unqualified support for Israel. No wonder the fascist thugs in New Delhi and Tel Aviv are overjoyed by Trump's return to power. By contrast, Russia could well benefit from his determination to end the Ukraine War by ceding territory lost to the Russians and committing not to expand NATO eastwards. For the Russians, the difficult choice would be to weaken its partnership with China in return for improving relations with the US. The Trump presidency would also pose challenges for American allies in Europe who would not only be asked to enhance their defence expenditures as members of NATO but would also face increasing trade tariffs for exports to the US, apart from having to deal with the wreckage of the Ukraine war.

The optimism expressed by some Pakistani circles about Trump's return is misplaced. During his first tenure Trump needed Pakistan's help to extricate the US from Afghanistan and, therefore, became conciliatory towards Islamabad. This is no longer the case. More importantly, his Secretary of State Markco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz are staunch opponents of China and, therefore, strong supporters of India as a counterweight to China. In 2023 Senator Rubio introduced a bill for treating India as an ally on a par with Israel and NATO countries and to increase arm supplies to India while sanctioning Pakistan for alleged support to terrorists targeting India. Congressmen Waltz, for his part, has been the head of the India caucus in Congress. Under their influence, US relations with Pakistan are likely to suffer even more.

In these circumstances the best that can be realistically achieved by Pakistan is damage limitation. We must be prepared to resist American pressure on our strategic programme, relations with India and partnership with China. At the same time, Pakistan needs to reach out to Trump at the earliest through diplomatic channels and the Pakistani-American community some of whom are closely wired to the Trump camp. The emphasis should be on continuing past cooperation such as on counter-terrorism and focussing on Trump's positive side as a deal maker and a peace builder. But at no cost should Pakistan compromise on strategic capabilities nor on its partnership with China which are the ultimate guarantees of Pakistan's security.