Osman Şenkul
Harvard academic Stephen M. Walt described US President Donald Trump’s strategy as ‘predatory hegemony’ in pursuit of short-term gains. Walt argued that such a strategy is not suited to a multipolar world. Walt pointed out that, due to these geopolitical tensions, if Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz and attack the region’s energy infrastructure, oil prices could exceed $100 per barrel.
Political scientist Barry Posen suggested in 2018 that Trump’s grand strategy was ‘illiberal hegemony,’ while analyst Oren Cass argued last autumn that its defining essence was the demand for ‘reciprocity.’ Trump has been described by many analysts as ‘realist, nationalist, old-fashioned mercantilist, imperialist and isolationist.’ Each of these terms reflects certain aspects of his approach, but his grand strategy for his second term was perhaps best defined by Walt: Predatory Hegemony!
A predatory hegemon prefers a world where, as the Athenian historian and commander Thucydides famously stated in his work The History of the Peloponnesian War, ‘the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.’ Therefore, such a country will be wary of norms, rules, or institutions that could limit its ability to exploit others.
As expected, Trump paid little attention to the United Nations; he tore up agreements negotiated by his predecessors, such as the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. He preferred bilateral trade talks to dealing with institutions such as the EU or the rules-based World Trade Organisation, because negotiating one-on-one with individual countries would further increase the US’s influence. Trump also imposed sanctions on senior officials of the International Criminal Court and launched a fierce attack on the emissions pricing plan developed by the International Maritime Organisation.
Therefore, no discussion of Washington’s predatory hegemony would be complete without mentioning Trump’s interest in other states’ territories and his desire to interfere in other countries’ internal politics by violating international law.
The desire to annex Greenland and the threats to impose punitive tariffs on European states opposing this action can be described as the most visible example of this impulse.
According to an analysis by Bloomberg Economics, Asia’s GDP could rise from $38 trillion in 2025 to $55 trillion in 2035. In the context of these economic forecasts, many analysts say, ‘Trump has shifted US security priorities to the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East and increased pressure on Iran.’ On the other hand, it is also noted that the US’s rivals, particularly China and Russia, are ‘causing concern’ by attempting to expand their control in strategic regions such as Taiwan, the South China Sea and Eastern Europe; because, according to these analysts, ‘a war over Taiwan could lead to losses exceeding $10 trillion.’ Meanwhile, trade routes in the South China Sea handle approximately $4 trillion in global transactions annually. Although most of Trump’s threats have not been fully implemented, the policy uncertainty is doing nothing but increasing anxiety among the US’s allies.
Amidst all these developments, investors supporting or cooperating with the US economy coined the term TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) to describe Trump’s tendency to frequently back down from his own threats.
On the other hand, showering Trump with praise in an attempt to curry favour with him resembles an arms race, as foreign leaders compete to be the one who garners the most praise in the shortest time. Trump also responds immediately to leaders who deviate from the script. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi learned this the hard way a few weeks after denying Trump’s claim that he had stopped the border clashes between India and Pakistan; India was first hit with a 25% tariff, which was then raised to 50% to punish India for buying Russian oil. In Canada, the Ontario provincial government aired a television advertisement criticising Trump’s tariff policy, prompting Trump to increase tariffs on Canada by 10 per cent. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney apologised shortly afterwards and the advertisement was immediately withdrawn. Normally, many leaders who respond to such attacks, even at the risk of humiliation, have preferred to bow down preventively, at least for now.
Furthermore, Trump and his supporters in the US see these displays of respect as proof that his tough stance is bringing significant tangible benefits to the US. As White House Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in August, ‘The results are clear: the President’s trade deals are creating a level playing field for our farmers and workers, trillions of dollars in investment are pouring into our country, and wars that have lasted for decades are ending. Foreign leaders are eager to establish positive relations with President Trump and join his booming economy.’
The administration appears to believe that it can exploit other countries indefinitely, and that this will further strengthen the US and increase its influence. However, experts argue that they are mistaken; because predatory hegemony has always carried the seeds of its own destruction throughout history, and has therefore always collapsed.
The first problem is that the benefits touted by the administration are exaggerated. Most of the wars that Trump claims to have ended are still ongoing. New foreign investment in the US is far below trillions of dollars and is unlikely to materialise in full. Apart from the data centres fuelled by the artificial intelligence craze, the winds created by Trump’s economic policies are not enough to cause an explosion in the US economy. Trump, his family and his political allies may be benefiting from his predatory policies, but most of the country is not.
Another problem is that the Chinese economy is now a rival to the US economy in many respects. Although China’s GDP is nominally lower, its purchasing power parity and growth rate are higher; moreover, it currently imports almost the same amount as the US. Its share of global goods exports has risen from 1% in 1950 to around 15% today, while the US share has fallen from 16% in 1950 to 8%. China controls the market for refined rare earth elements, on which many countries, including the US, depend; it is rapidly becoming a leading player in many scientific fields, and many actors, including US farmers, want access to Chinese markets.
In fact, underlying all that is happening, as was evident at the G20 meeting held in India on 9-10 September 2023, is that for quite some time now, the US has been creating numerous economic and, at times, political tensions, primarily through the successive tariffs imposed by Trump, in order to curb China’s rapid development in recent years.
One aspect of the China-focused developments increasingly featured in the Western press these days is the ‘China-Taiwan tension,’ which has existed for a long time but has not been as prominent on the agenda as it is now. ‘Military movements’ between mainland China and Taiwan, a country that could be described as ‘miniature’ compared to the mainland, where separatists have gathered, are also rising to the top of the agenda; so much so that some media outlets are reporting on military buildups on both sides.
Meanwhile, Washington signed a trade agreement with its loyal ally Taipei on Thursday, 12 February, reducing customs duties on Taiwanese exports to 15 per cent. Furthermore, under the agreement, Taiwan will open its market to US goods. Accordingly, Taiwan will eliminate or reduce 99 percent of customs duties on US goods and provide ‘preferential market access’ to US industrial and agricultural exports. These include automobiles, beef products and minerals. Taiwan will also purchase over $84 billion worth of US goods by 2029, including liquefied natural gas, crude oil, aircraft, and power equipment.
However, as we mentioned above, alongside the many unfounded tariff tensions raised by Trump, ‘hard power manoeuvres’ stretching from the friction in the Strait of Hormuz to the tensions centred on Taiwan in the Japan-China-North Korea triangle remain one of the most important factors in world politics. With its favourable geography, large and developed economy, unparalleled military power, and control over critical financial hubs as the world’s reserve currency, the US is clearly demonstrating that it will not hesitate to use the significant influence it has established over many countries.
At this stage, the structure of predatory hegemony, which squanders these advantages in pursuit of short-term gains while ignoring long-term negative consequences, is once again evident. Throughout history, ‘predatory hegemony’ has been a losing strategy. The threat-based actions that the Trump administration has persistently focused on, undertaking from multiple angles, can be described as experiments and shoving matches in preparation for the final move.
When you look at historical examples, it appears that Trump, almost all of whose actions are focused on today, has his sights set on ‘Gaza, Hormuz, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan in Iran, and the Hukou Base in Hsinchu County, Taiwan, across the whole of Asia’. As Trump and his close advisors and supporters have repeatedly stated in various settings, if economic activity and international trade are to continue in the region, then ‘Trump’s words will be heeded.’
However, almost all countries in the region, particularly China and India, are trying to find a way to survive by adopting cautious, but mostly ‘concessionary’ approaches to Trump’s not-so-surprising outbursts; because almost all of these countries have stated in various statements made at different times and under different circumstances that they feel ‘left alone’.
However, the way to invalidate all of Trump’s threats is to investigate events in the same region that occurred for almost the same reasons in history. Similar events took place during the period when the historical ‘Silk Road’ was established. Undoubtedly, one of the most important cornerstones of the organised development of international trade is the ‘Silk Road’. The most important element in the establishment of the Silk Road, which connected Far East Asia with Anatolia and Europe and played a driving role in the development of the economies along the route for years, was the military. Thanks to military organisations that could be described as the first ‘professional military units’ in history, the Silk Road fulfilled its historical mission.
Until 300-200 BC, as was the case everywhere in the world, safe commercial travel was quite difficult in Asia and Anatolia. Commercial journeys, which could only be undertaken during periods of peace, were fraught with risk. Bandit gangs that had sprung up everywhere hindered the development of trade and, consequently, regional economies. As a result, looting and pillaging mostly operated independently of central authorities (states) and seized a significant portion of the value produced. These developments weakened the economies controlled by central authorities, forcing them to take action.
It was in the 200s BC that the Iranian tribal state of Parthia first took steps in this regard. They began to form ‘professional military teams’ to protect their own trade caravans. However, in the early days, these units, which needed to be equipped with heavy armour and weapons, became quite costly. As a result, the structure of the organisation was changed. The units began to be prepared individually in villages. They placed one or a few ‘expensive’ professional soldiers at the head of each village unit. Thus, the problem was solved with fewer ‘expensive’ soldiers.
Now, Partian trade caravans could travel and transport goods quite safely, at least within the country’s borders. Each village guard protected the caravan in its own area and handed it over to the next village guard. Bandits within the borders of the Parthian Empire were now ‘out of work’; some had even chosen to become professional soldiers. However, this success of the Parthians was initially only regional in nature. But this ease, which spread from mouth to mouth in Parthia, began to set an example for the surrounding areas. The small states and kingdoms in the vicinity also began to establish similar organisations in their own countries.
In the 100s BC, numerous military organisations tasked with ‘protecting trade’ were established in almost all Asian states. The formation of the route that would later be known as the ‘Silk Road’ was also the result of the creation of a ‘military cordon’.
Now, the silken fabrics, spices, and jewels of Far Asia could be transported safely to Asia Minor, and from there to Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Aegean, and Europe. The riches of all these regions could also be transported to all corners of Asia via this route. In other words, mercenaries, by facilitating the emergence of the Silk Road, had actually given the economy a boost at one time.
The ‘mercenaries’ of that era, who ensured the security and thus the permanence of the Silk Road, could actually establish ‘production armies’ today that would ensure the security of production and trade along the entire route with a common stance against a possible Trump intervention, strengthening the growing export caravan in Asia. by redirecting the import route from the US to Asia Minor, then to Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Aegean, and Europe, they could leave Trump isolated.