Whether or not readers of this column believe me, I have never been able to afford a new car because of the exorbitant duty. I once purchased one twenty-five years ago. But I could only afford it because I was entitled to duty free as Speaker of the House. I could not otherwise afford a new car then or now, if I have to pay duty. But I look forward very soon to being able to walk into a showroom and order a new car because I will not have to pay the duty , courtesy of President Donald Trump.
If attention is paid to events unfolding in the US since January 20 when President Trump assumed office, many would be mesmerized, not only by the dizzying pace at which new policies are being rolled out but at their wide-ranging impact on the US and the world. Within the US itself, the work of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, is having the most impact and is the most controversial. It is closing down departments, offering buyouts to federal employees, dismissing others, terminating programmes and more. The courts have intervened at the behest of state officials, states’ attorneys general and others and have placed temporary restraints on some of the actions of DOGE. We call them injunctions. For us outside the United States, the scaling down of the work of USAID, with the declared intention of abolishing it altogether, will create worldwide hardships to millions of people who rely on the life-saving or life-enhancing programmes of USAID. This includes Guyana.
President Trump’s foreign policy initiatives have been no less controversial, defying what many believed to be his intention to withdraw the US’s overseas entanglements that have the possibility of drawing it into conflicts. He frequently condemned ‘forever wars.’ It is now clear that this did not include conflicts with countries that the US could intimidate, including Greenland, or Denmark, and Panama and Gaza. While few would take seriously his suggestion that Canada should become the US’s 51st state, most take seriously the potential that the US could send troops to take over Greenland, the Panama Canal and Gaza.
These horrifying prospects, which President Trump is not backing away from, should cause Guyana some concern. If a new international order emerges where the strong countries can intimidate and then invade the whole or parts of weaker countries, what are the prospects for the resolution of the Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy where Venezuela has already violated preliminary decisions of the ICJ by creating a state, Guayana Essequiba, out of Guyana’s Essequibo Region and is about to elect a Governor. So far, the US has been steadfast in its support for Guyana, which has been recently reiterated by newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But what message will be sent to Venezuela if the US invades Greenland or the Panama Canal or if intimidation succeeds in causing them to back down?
Other troubling policies announced amidst some confusion and consternation in Europe are those in relation to the Russia-Ukraine war, which Russia refers to as a Special Military Operation. Two potential elements have emerged from those announcements, namely, Ukraine may have to relinquish the territory that it lost to Russia and the US will not support Ukraine joining NATO. There are many in the South who support Russia’s defence of its security against what it sees as the existential threat to Russia of NATO at its border in Ukraine and the seizure of Ukraine’s territory as security against that threat. But where does that leave Guyana? Would the establishment of a precedent in international relations where one country can seize the territory another be detrimental to the safety and security of Guyana by emboldening Venezuela’s ongoing predatory conduct?
President Trump’s policies in relation to tariffs appear to be still emerging. While it has been broadly declared that countries with balance of trade surpluses with the US, which have tariffs on US goods and which allow the shipment of fentanyl to the US are in the US’s crosshairs, it was broadly understood that policies on tariffs relate to Mexico, Canada, China and Europe. But it has emerged over the past few days that President Trump is not excluding any country that has tariffs on American goods, including American cars. “On trade, I have decided for purposes of fairness, that I will charge a reciprocal tariff, meaning whatever countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them. No more, no less,” said Trump. I am not familiar with the tariff regime in Guyana, but I do know that tariffs on new cars do not exclude American made cars. What happens when the US authorities learn of Guyana’s tariff regime against US cars? Would it therefore not be prudent for Guyana to consider very seriously a change in its tariff structure because much of the goods exported to the US are by farmers and small businesses which cannot survive an imposition of ‘reciprocal’ US tariffs? If tariffs are abolished on new cars, it might enable me to finally buy a new car!
I also want to buy a new car that is affordable