Trump’s strong-arm deportations succeeding
Trump’s Strong-arm Diplomacy Demonstrates to Britain and the World How to Handle Migrant Deportations
The Colombian president’s dramatic reversal, moving from denouncing Donald Trump as a “white enslaver” to offering his personal aircraft, took place in less than nine hours, demonstrating the remarkable effectiveness of America’s diplomatic pressure tactics.
On that fateful Sunday afternoon, Gustavo Petro initially took a defiant stance, refusing to accept two planned deportation flights from the United States, citing what he termed a lack of “dignity” in the proceedings. At first, it appeared Mr Petro was wagering that Mr Trump would adhere to the customary diplomatic protocols typically observed between the United States and one of its principal Latin American allies.
“I do not shake the hands of white enslavers,” Mr Petro declared with evident disdain.
However, Mr Trump’s swift and stark response prompted an astonishing about-face: should Mr Petro maintain his resistance, the former president warned, the United States would implement a punitive 25 per cent tariff on all Colombian imports, escalating to a crushing 50 per cent after merely a week.
In a particularly pointed move, Colombian government officials would find their visas revoked – and in an unprecedented extension of the ban to “associates”, any offspring enrolled in American universities might suddenly discover their academic pursuits unceremoniously terminated.
Such measures hardly reflect the traditional treatment of a friendly nation, particularly one that serves as America’s foremost ally in the regional struggle against drug cartels. Nevertheless, the aggressive strategy proved remarkably effective. By Monday morning, Mr Petro’s office had capitulated, announcing the presidential aircraft would be made available to repatriate deportees, thereby enabling the deportation flights to proceed as initially scheduled.
Whilst the United States suspended the threatened tariffs, it maintained a firm stance, declaring the visa restrictions would remain in place until the aircraft had successfully landed.
For Mr Trump, the diplomatic exchange could scarcely have unfolded more favourably, serving as a crystalline demonstration to the international community of how an adversary can be thoroughly overwhelmed through the strategic deployment of White House authority. The victory proved particularly potent given that the vanquished party was a self-proclaimed “socialist” who had built his reputation through guerrilla warfare.
The message radiating from America is unambiguous: the nation is prepared to employ ruthless tactics when necessary.
This diplomatic confrontation has been monitored with particular interest by two other smaller nations currently engaged in disputes with Mr Trump: Greenland and Panama.
Even if the president refrains from acting upon his somewhat cavalier threats to invade these territories, which occupy the periphery of America’s direct geographical sphere of influence, he might achieve his objectives through intimidation alone.
Denmark has already committed £1.2 billion to bolstering Greenland’s defences, including plans for additional patrol vessels and enhanced drone surveillance to counter potential infiltration by Russia or China.
José Raúl Mulino, Panama’s president, whilst steadfast in his refusal to surrender control of the strategically crucial 82-kilometre canal connecting the Caribbean to the Pacific, faces a delicate diplomatic challenge. Whilst regulatory requirements regarding neutrality preclude him from reducing transit costs for American cargo vessels, Panama would be ill-advised to permit China any further influence in the region. Mr Trump’s ire has been particularly provoked by the presence of two ports under Hong Kong-based management at opposite ends of the waterway.
One potential compromise might involve offering America preferential investment opportunities in the canal’s operations, potentially encouraging Mr Trump to direct his attention elsewhere.
Naturally, the president’s effective use of diplomatic pressure has attracted admiring glances abroad, particularly in Britain, which remains entangled in its seemingly interminable struggle to deport illegal migrants and failed asylum-seekers.
The question arises: Could Sir Keir Starmer shed his lawyer’s demeanour and employ similar strong-arm tactics to achieve success in this arena?
The stark reality is that Britain’s position differs markedly from America’s. Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom has relatively few nations dependent upon its goodwill for economic prosperity. Its top ten trading partners include China, Switzerland, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia – nations whose citizens are not seeking refuge in the UK and who would remain largely unmoved by any attempts at diplomatic intimidation from Downing Street.
Those countries whose citizens do illegally traverse the Channel, such as Bangladesh and Iran, maintain minimal trade relations with the UK. Britain lacks the leverage to compel France, backed by the European Union, to accept the return of Channel migrants.
The attempt to resolve the issue through financial incentives to Rwanda has thus far proved fruitless. If Trump’s America represents the heavyweight champion of international influence, Britain must acknowledge its current status as more akin to a welterweight contender.
Nevertheless, Sir Keir might still demonstrate some diplomatic muscle in alternative ways.
Jens Spahn, a prominent figure in Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – likely to form the next government – recently broached the possibility of Berlin withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), citing the obstacles it presents to deporting foreign criminals.
“It is not ordained by God that we maintain our membership,” he observed. “While we remain committed multilateralists, there must be tangible benefits to such arrangements.”
Sir Keir has firmly pledged not to withdraw the UK from the treaty, as Britain’s pursuit of enhanced trade terms with the EU partially depends upon shared membership. However, the Prime Minister could potentially forge an alliance for reform alongside Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and other nations advocating for more decisive measures to address illegal migration.
Furthermore, Britain retains significant influence in certain quarters – namely, its overseas territories. The possibility of establishing an offshore processing centre for asylum seekers in the Falkland Islands, as recently proposed by the Policy Exchange think tank, represents one such avenue for consideration.
One can only imagine that if Mr Trump occupied Number 10, the next phase of this diplomatic strategy would already be well underway…