Un inauguration speech that of Donald Trump with strongly populist, patriotic and protectionist tones, but which in the end, according to the analysis of Stefano Silvestri, great expert on international politics, scientific adviser and former president of the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), “seemed to be of little significance. Donald Trump used slogans that will have to be tested by facts". However, the first dossier is already on the table of the new US president: the re-discussion of the NAFTA free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, one of the strong points of the new president since the long electoral campaign that brought him to the White House against all odds: “It seems to me a counterproductive choice. In general, all protectionist choices are, because they protect in an illusory way: globalization goes on and isolating oneself can pay off immediately, but weakens in the long run”, argues Silvestri commenting, in this interview with FIRSTonline, a week that seemed to turn the world upside down only with Trump's debut in the White House but with that of Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Davos and with the controversial intervention of British Prime Minister Theresa May on Brexit.
Professor Silvestri, with his protectionism Trump risks a boomerang effect, not only on NAFTA but also in the case of the thousands of new jobs already guaranteed in the USA, even opportunistically if we want, by various car manufacturers and also Amazon and Wal-Mart : is it so?
“Certainly, because if we assume higher costs today, it will be a problem tomorrow for companies to produce more and export. The United States has a large internal market and perhaps they can take this risk, but in my opinion the price to pay will still be high. Not to mention that protectionism discourages innovation, which only works when there is real competition”.
The theme of protectionism and globalization, even before Donald Trump's inauguration speech, has been at the center of attention in recent days, with the intervention of the British premier Theresa May on Brexit and that - surprisingly - of the Chinese president Xi Jinping . What do you think?
“I found Xi Jinping's stance interesting and positive, even if it could be a tactic to counter Trump's moves, which go the other way. China is right to follow this path even if it will be necessary to see if the model works: we have seen that the GDP continues to slow down and we are still talking about a communist regime, which with a system that is too open could see popular uprisings break out. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, it is clear that May has taken note of the fact that being with one foot in Europe and one outside is not possible: we are therefore heading towards a "hard Brexit", with difficult consequences for both parties. Especially for the European countries probably, destined in general to pay dearly for the changes taking place in the international system”.
In what sense?
“For years Europe has enjoyed a position rent, protected by a solid relationship with the UK and the USA: now this comfort zone is disappearing and on the other side there are tensions with Russia and Turkey. If then, as it seemed to emerge from your speech, Theresa May were to make the United Kingdom a tax haven, it would be a problem for the EU and European countries: we would be forced to put up barriers and this is never a good thing”.
PerchIt is?
“Because, as I said before, protectionism only pays off in the short term. Trump used the slogan 'buy American, hire American', but this is just a slogan and, if really applied, it can do little damage in a large country like the USA, while it would be harmful for countries like Italy" .
Going back to Trump: in a previous one interview given to FIRSTonline she had called it "destabilizing". There is no doubt that hers too, like Brexit, seems like a "hard" break.
“I confirm it: Trump is destabilizing in that he is absolutely unpredictable, since he doesn't even know exactly what to do. His inaugural speech was in fact generic and not very significant in terms of content, it will have to be verified by the facts. There is certainly a break with the previous administration and we will see it above all in international relations: he will privilege bilateral agreements over multilateral ones, always putting America first as he has repeatedly repeated. Trump sees a world in which national interests oppose each other and almost cancel each other out: I'm not saying that he has a "zero-sum" vision (I win if you lose, ed.) but we are close. However, only two countries in the world can afford protectionist policies: the USA and China, but China has given a different message”.
You have met many US presidents: if you had to name one, who reminds you of Trump the most?
"Nobody. Trump is unique, he doesn't come from politics and he also stands against the establishment. In addition, it is opening up to Russia, an absolutely new fact even if it has to be verified: agreements are made in two, Putin could use a friendly Trump to get out of his international isolation, but we'll see if the two really agree".
And how does Europe get out of it? As you said before, paradigms are changing, plus 2017 is the year of elections in France, Germany and maybe Italy.
“This is a decisive year for the European Union. The watershed is the French elections, which arrive first (voting takes place on April 23 and May 7, ed): if Marine Le Pen wins and then implements what she is saying in the electoral campaign, i.e. taking France out of Europe , then Europe is dead. Although with great difficulty, Europe can do without the United Kingdom, but not France, Germany and Italy itself”.
Who would be the most desirable president for Europe among those competing for the Elysée?
“Fillon has a Gaullist vision, the one we knew a long time ago with the formula “Europe of the homelands” and which would still be manageable. Better still I would see a pro-European liberal like Macron. In Italy, however, everything depends on the Democratic Party: if he doesn't commit suicide, we can have a stable country. If, on the other hand, the 5 Star Movement became the first party, it would be at least as dangerous as Trump for the US".
