What if an event in history did not happen – Part II

A few years ago, I wrote a post asking the question, what if certain events or outcomes did not happen. The premise is to think how other events may have been impacted. The post was more US-centric, so I would like to follow-up with a more global set of questions.

– What would have happened if the Mongols had continued their western push deeper into Europe?

– What would have happened if Roland and his successors were unable to push the Muslim expansion out of Europe?

– What would have happened if Apartheid in South Africa had not been pressured out of existence?

– What would have happened if China had not retrenched from its sea-based expansion as they focused on domestic problems?

– What would have happened if the British acquiesced and signed a truce with Germany and Italy rather than continue the fight in WWII?

– What would the Americas look like if the Mayans continued their existence?

– What would have happened if some tangible semblance of the Roman Empire continued to exist well beyond its demise?

That is plenty to ponder. Pick one or two and let me know what you think? To my way of thinking, there are lessons even for today.

The unraveling accelerates

The finance ministers of the G7 met in British Columbia last week and gave the US Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, an earful. They told him the US is forsaking its global economic leadership.

Not only are we treating our allies and trading partners poorly, the chaotic style of the US President has worn thin. Depending on which fractious voice is in favor on a given day, the President is routinely changing his mind. This quote from Hua Chunying, the Chinese Foreign Minister, which was reported by The New York Times, is telling:

“In international relations, every time you change your face and turn your back is another loss and squandering of your country’s credibility.”

In the same article, an anonymous European official noted the short-sighted nature of the President and his Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who are looking for “photo opportunities at American steel factories.”

The official noted “European negotiators regard that stance as an unsophisticated, zero-sum view of trade, in which one country that sells more goods to its partner is the winner – an outlook that makes a trade deal difficult to achieve.”

There is a sadness in reading these words. Many have seen this retrenchment tactic as troubling. Conservative pundit David Brooks called the tariffs on allies as “ruinous” on PBS Newshour. On the same show, more liberal pundit Mark Shields called them “reckless.” Shields added that Trump has tended to not respect relationships and views the world as “me and the enemies.”

Zero-sum transactional thinking is a narrow minded view. In global trade, the deal must be fair to stand the test of time. Of course, any deal must be reevaluated over time, but it must be done out of mutual respect. In Trump’s view on anything, he must defeat the other. That is not conducive to building a relationship.