Energy Diplomacy Amid ‘America First’ [Gas Expert Insights]
In his quest to return to the White House, candidate Donald Trump promised repeatedly to put America first. Now, as he begins the first 100 days of his second term, President Trump and his team will need to choose when to prioritize American interests without regard to other countries’ concerns, and when to work in tandem with others toward outcomes that satisfy both the United States and its partners. In energy, climate, and energy-related trade issues, acting unilaterally could place at risk some of the new team’s stated objectives, a point that does not appear to have been reflected in the announcements and orders that the president issued on Day One.
The slogan “America First” is understood widely as an echo of 1930s American isolationism—shorthand for giving priority to domestic policy concerns and especially rejecting global entanglements, be they military or civilian. From this perspective, the United States is right to view international commitments and institutions with skepticism. But at least three areas could challenge an inflexible adherence to this aim and may favor diplomacy: tariff repercussions, trade system improvements, and influence in global climate decision-making.
|
Advertisement: The National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited (NGC) NGC’s HSSE strategy is reflective and supportive of the organisational vision to become a leader in the global energy business. |
Diplomacy: Strong Arguments Win the Day
Anyone who has engaged with international partners and institutions on behalf of the United States knows that work is hard, perhaps especially in technocratic arenas like energy that have major implications for the economy. To forge international energy agreements and well-functioning multilateral institutions is labor-intensive and often requires sustained funding support. US representatives need to understand foreign counterparts’ priorities—and accommodate them when possible. Washington’s preferences win the day if and when American ideas are superior to those suggested by other countries and are advocated skillfully.
In fact, American ideas frequently do win out—even in the most complicated international negotiations. Several examples from multilateral climate negotiations are notable: The notion that the global response to human-caused climate change should reflect first and foremost the best available science was a core approach of President George H. W. Bush that was incorporated into the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); it set the stage for an evolving response as the science of climate change matured. Later, President George W. Bush established in 2007 the Major Economies Process, a consultation forum designed to allow pragmatic dialogue on how to protect the climate and economic activity. Later still, after years of American diplomacy opposing top-down emissions limitations that would have applied only to industrialized countries, the Paris Agreement adopted a “pledge and review” structure as its foundation. This structure reflected the need for a truly global response on climate, including actions by China and other emerging economies, as well as periodic reviews to assess collective progress.
If energy and climate diplomacy is labor-intensive but potentially productive, a key question for the start of Donald Trump’s second term is how to navigate the trade-offs involved in either adhering to America First or selectively foregoing it. The president relishes disrupting established norms and longstanding institutions, so giving primacy to American views regardless of other countries’ concerns may be his standard response. The problem is that prioritizing US objectives alone can undermine Trump’s own objectives and can even create bigger problems than exist today.
Tariffs: Considering Repercussions
On Inauguration Day, Trump announced that he intends to impose, probably by February 1, across-the-board 25% tariffs on all products from Mexico and Canada, two important trading partners of the United States. If implemented on all imports (though indeed, unconfirmed reports before inauguration suggested a narrower scope), the tariffs would raise the cost of heavy crude oil used in US refineries along the Gulf Coast and electricity sold to consumers in northwestern and northeastern states. Thus, instead of helping Trump to reduce energy costs, as he has pledged, the threatened tariffs would hit American households with higher pump prices and electric bills. The tariffs would also undercut the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which Trump called an important achievement of his first term.
Competition with China is another critical area where a strict America First orientation could make desired outcomes more complicated. Many American leaders, from both major parties and from both the legislative and executive branches, state that China disregards World Trade Organization rules about market access, and engages in other anti-competitive behaviors ranging from industrial espionage to forced technology transfer and from support for excessive industrial capacity to long-running subsidies provided by various levels of government. Trump has said he will impose tariffs in response: a 60% levy on all goods from China.
A challenge arises, however, when Trump also declares that goods from other countries will face tariffs of 10–20%. It is possible these tariff threats are mere saber-rattling, a tactic that at least one member of Trump’s own team has acknowledged as “escalate to de-escalate.” Regardless, Trump’s promised tariffs may undermine foreign leaders’ willingness to join Washington in pressing for changes to China’s trading practices. Longstanding Trump priorities like the effort to break China’s dominance in critical minerals could likewise lose support.
Trade: Repairing the System
Many in Washington appear to have concluded that the current international trade system, which the United States has supported since the Second World War, needs truly profound change. Regardless of these views, trade and investment, including through the underperforming World Trade Organization (WTO), are the lifeblood of the US energy industry. From liquefied natural gas to crude oil and from nuclear reactor systems to innovative nanomaterials, US energy exports—and therefore US jobs—depend on a functioning global trade system. Consequently, the Trump team needs to be clear about the ways in which it thinks the WTO and other trade arrangements could be improved; without clear solutions, the United States will compromise its ability to enlist other countries in forging a fairer and more effective global trade system.
Climate Change: Maintaining a Presence at Negotiations
Future climate change diplomacy is an area of special sensitivity. Trump speaks with venom about clean energy and climate policies, labeling them a “green new scam.” The president has already indicated that the United States is again abandoning the Paris Agreement, although he has not indicated an intent to withdraw from the UNFCCC. In addition, certain congressional Republicans are calling for the United States to leave, reduce funding, or force changed priorities at the International Energy Agency, which they claim pays excessive attention to climate and too little to energy security despite the fact that energy security remains central to the agency’s stated priorities and its work program. But the open question is whether US interests are better advanced by staying within established institutions and negotiations—even if only for defensive reasons. Exiting would largely leave decisions to others, such as China or European countries, whose priorities may be at odds with what Trump would prefer.
The president and his team have arrived with a long list of policies they intend to change. As they start their first 100 days in power, they need to determine when to work with foreign partners on topics like the future of global energy markets, and when not to. Effective energy diplomacy, which advances US interests by engaging foreign partners and accommodating them when possible, can yield positive results for the American people—results made more durable exactly because partners support American approaches.
Originally published by Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University
The statements, opinions and data contained in the content published in Gas Expert Insights are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s) of Natural Gas World.